linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <249230644.21949166.1557435998550.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 17:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
To:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        aneesh kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        npiggin@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force
 flush


----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> On 5/9/19 11:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 05:36:29PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 2019, at 3:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> >>> index 99740e1dd273..fe768f8d612e 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> >>> @@ -244,15 +244,20 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> >>> 		unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >>> {
> >>> 	/*
> >>> -	 * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
> >>> -	 * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
> >>> -	 * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
> >>> -	 * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
> >>> -	 * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
> >>> +	 * Sensible comment goes here..
> >>> 	 */
> >>> -	if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
> >>> -		__tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> >>> -		__tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
> >>> +	if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->full_mm) {
> >>> +		/*
> >>> +		 * Since we're can't tell what we actually should have
> >>> +		 * flushed flush everything in the given range.
> >>> +		 */
> >>> +		tlb->start = start;
> >>> +		tlb->end = end;
> >>> +		tlb->freed_tables = 1;
> >>> +		tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
> >>> +		tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
> >>> +		tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
> >>> +		tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
> >>> 	}
> >>>
> >>> 	tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
> >> As a simple optimization, I think it is possible to hold multiple nesting
> >> counters in the mm, similar to tlb_flush_pending, for freed_tables,
> >> cleared_ptes, etc.
> >>
> >> The first time you set tlb->freed_tables, you also atomically increase
> >> mm->tlb_flush_freed_tables. Then, in tlb_flush_mmu(), you just use
> >> mm->tlb_flush_freed_tables instead of tlb->freed_tables.
> > That sounds fraught with races and expensive; I would much prefer to not
> > go there for this arguably rare case.
> >
> > Consider such fun cases as where CPU-0 sees and clears a PTE, CPU-1
> > races and doesn't see that PTE. Therefore CPU-0 sets and counts
> > cleared_ptes. Then if CPU-1 flushes while CPU-0 is still in mmu_gather,
> > it will see cleared_ptes count increased and flush that granularity,
> > OTOH if CPU-1 flushes after CPU-0 completes, it will not and potentiall
> > miss an invalidate it should have had.
> >
> > This whole concurrent mmu_gather stuff is horrible.
> >
> >    /me ponders more....
> >
> > So I think the fundamental race here is this:
> >
> > 	CPU-0				CPU-1
> >
> > 	tlb_gather_mmu(.start=1,	tlb_gather_mmu(.start=2,
> > 		       .end=3);			       .end=4);
> >
> > 	ptep_get_and_clear_full(2)
> > 	tlb_remove_tlb_entry(2);
> > 	__tlb_remove_page();
> > 					if (pte_present(2)) // nope
> >
> > 					tlb_finish_mmu();
> >
> > 					// continue without TLBI(2)
> > 					// whoopsie
> >
> > 	tlb_finish_mmu();
> > 	  tlb_flush()		->	TLBI(2)
> 
> I'm not quite sure if this is the case Jan really met. But, according to
> his test, once correct tlb->freed_tables and tlb->cleared_* are set, his
> test works well.

My theory was following sequence:

t1: map_write_unmap()                 t2: dummy()

  map_address = mmap()
  map_address[i] = 'b'
  munmap(map_address)
  downgrade_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
  unmap_region()
  tlb_gather_mmu()
    inc_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);
  free_pgtables()
    tlb->freed_tables = 1
    tlb->cleared_pmds = 1

                                        pthread_exit()
                                        madvise(thread_stack, 8M, MADV_DONTNEED)
                                          zap_page_range()
                                            tlb_gather_mmu()
                                              inc_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);

  tlb_finish_mmu()
    if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm))
      __tlb_reset_range()
        tlb->freed_tables = 0
        tlb->cleared_pmds = 0
    __flush_tlb_range(last_level = 0)
  ...
  map_address = mmap()
    map_address[i] = 'b'
      <page fault loop>
      # PTE appeared valid to me,
      # so I suspected stale TLB entry at higher level as result of "freed_tables = 0"


I'm happy to apply/run any debug patches to get more data that would help.

> 
> >
> >
> > And we can fix that by having tlb_finish_mmu() sync up. Never let a
> > concurrent tlb_finish_mmu() complete until all concurrenct mmu_gathers
> > have completed.
> 
> Not sure if this will scale well.
> 
> >
> > This should not be too hard to make happen.
> 
>