linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:50:16 -0500
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, tom@...pey.com,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, benve@...co.com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        rcampbell@...dia.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:23:12PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:01:09PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:56 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:44:41PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > To make it clear.
> > > >
> > > > Lock code:
> > > >     GUP()
> > > >         ...
> > > >         lock_page(page);
> > > >         if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> > > >             unlock_page(page);
> > > >             wait_stable_page(page);
> > > >             goto retry;
> > > >         }
> > > >         atomic_add(page->refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> > > >         unlock_page(page);
> > > >
> > > >     test_set_page_writeback()
> > > >         bool pinned = false;
> > > >         ...
> > > >         pinned = page_is_pin(page); // could be after TestSetPageWriteback
> > > >         TestSetPageWriteback(page);
> > > >         ...
> > > >         return pinned;
> > > >
> > > > Memory barrier:
> > > >     GUP()
> > > >         ...
> > > >         atomic_add(page->refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> > > >         smp_mb();
> > > >         if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> > > >             atomic_add(page->refcount, -PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> > > >             wait_stable_page(page);
> > > >             goto retry;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > >     test_set_page_writeback()
> > > >         bool pinned = false;
> > > >         ...
> > > >         TestSetPageWriteback(page);
> > > >         smp_wmb();
> > > >         pinned = page_is_pin(page);
> > > >         ...
> > > >         return pinned;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One is not more complex than the other. One can contend, the other
> > > > will _never_ contend.
> > > 
> > > The complexity is in the validation of lockless algorithms. It's
> > > easier to reason about locks than barriers for the long term
> > > maintainability of this code. I'm with Jan and John on wanting to
> > > explore lock_page() before a barrier-based scheme.
> > 
> > How is the above hard to validate ?
> 
> Well, if you think it's so easy, then please write the test cases so
> we can add them to fstests and make sure that we don't break it in
> future.
> 
> If you can't write filesystem test cases that exercise these race
> conditions reliably, then the answer to your question is "it is
> extremely hard to validate" and the correct thing to do is to start
> with the simple lock_page() based algorithm.
> 
> Premature optimisation in code this complex is something we really,
> really need to avoid.

Litmus test shows that this never happens, i am attaching 2 litmus
test one with barrier and one without. Without barrier we can see
the double negative !PageWriteback in GUP and !page_pinned() in
test_set_page_writeback() (0:EAX = 0; 1:EAX = 0; below)


    ~/local/bin/litmus7 -r 100 gup.litmus

    ...

    Histogram (3 states)
    2     *>0:EAX=0; 1:EAX=0; x=1; y=1;
    4999999:>0:EAX=1; 1:EAX=0; x=1; y=1;
    4999999:>0:EAX=0; 1:EAX=1; x=1; y=1;
    Ok

    Witnesses
    Positive: 2, Negative: 9999998
    Condition exists (0:EAX=0 /\ 1:EAX=0) is validated
    Hash=2d53e83cd627ba17ab11c875525e078b
    Observation SB Sometimes 2 9999998
    Time SB 3.24



With the barrier this never happens:
    ~/local/bin/litmus7 -r 10000 gup-mb.litmus

    ...

    Histogram (3 states)
    499579828:>0:EAX=1; 1:EAX=0; x=1; y=1;
    499540152:>0:EAX=0; 1:EAX=1; x=1; y=1;
    880020:>0:EAX=1; 1:EAX=1; x=1; y=1;
    No

    Witnesses
    Positive: 0, Negative: 1000000000
    Condition exists (0:EAX=0 /\ 1:EAX=0) is NOT validated
    Hash=0dd48258687c8f737921f907c093c316
    Observation SB Never 0 1000000000


I do not know any better test than litmus for this kind of thing.

Cheers,
Jérôme

View attachment "gup.litmus" of type "text/plain" (159 bytes)

View attachment "gup-mb.litmus" of type "text/plain" (202 bytes)