Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:25:09 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 PATCH 2/2] mm: mempolicy: handle vma with unmovable pages
 mapped correctly in mbind

On 7/19/19 7:21 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> When running syzkaller internally, we ran into the below bug on 4.9.x
> kernel:
> 
> kernel BUG at mm/huge_memory.c:2124!
> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
> Dumping ftrace buffer:
>    (ftrace buffer empty)
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 1518 Comm: syz-executor107 Not tainted 4.9.168+ #2
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011
> task: ffff880067b34900 task.stack: ffff880068998000
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81895d6b>]  [<ffffffff81895d6b>] split_huge_page_to_list+0x8fb/0x1030 mm/huge_memory.c:2124
> RSP: 0018:ffff88006899f980  EFLAGS: 00010286
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffea00018f1700 RCX: 0000000000000000
> RDX: 1ffffd400031e2e7 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffffea00018f1738
> RBP: ffff88006899f9e8 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: fffffbfff0d8b13e R12: ffffea00018f1400
> R13: ffffea00018f1400 R14: ffffea00018f1720 R15: ffffea00018f1401
> FS:  00007fa333996740(0000) GS:ffff88006c600000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 0000000020000040 CR3: 0000000066b9c000 CR4: 00000000000606f0
> Stack:
>  0000000000000246 ffff880067b34900 0000000000000000 ffff88007ffdc000
>  0000000000000000 ffff88006899f9e8 ffffffff812b4015 ffff880064c64e18
>  ffffea00018f1401 dffffc0000000000 ffffea00018f1700 0000000020ffd000
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff818490f1>] split_huge_page include/linux/huge_mm.h:100 [inline]
>  [<ffffffff818490f1>] queue_pages_pte_range+0x7e1/0x1480 mm/mempolicy.c:538
>  [<ffffffff817ed0da>] walk_pmd_range mm/pagewalk.c:50 [inline]
>  [<ffffffff817ed0da>] walk_pud_range mm/pagewalk.c:90 [inline]
>  [<ffffffff817ed0da>] walk_pgd_range mm/pagewalk.c:116 [inline]
>  [<ffffffff817ed0da>] __walk_page_range+0x44a/0xdb0 mm/pagewalk.c:208
>  [<ffffffff817edb94>] walk_page_range+0x154/0x370 mm/pagewalk.c:285
>  [<ffffffff81844515>] queue_pages_range+0x115/0x150 mm/mempolicy.c:694
>  [<ffffffff8184f493>] do_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1241 [inline]
>  [<ffffffff8184f493>] SYSC_mbind+0x3c3/0x1030 mm/mempolicy.c:1370
>  [<ffffffff81850146>] SyS_mbind+0x46/0x60 mm/mempolicy.c:1352
>  [<ffffffff810097e2>] do_syscall_64+0x1d2/0x600 arch/x86/entry/common.c:282
>  [<ffffffff82ff6f93>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs+0x5d/0xdb
> Code: c7 80 1c 02 00 e8 26 0a 76 01 <0f> 0b 48 c7 c7 40 46 45 84 e8 4c
> RIP  [<ffffffff81895d6b>] split_huge_page_to_list+0x8fb/0x1030 mm/huge_memory.c:2124
>  RSP <ffff88006899f980>
> 
> with the below test:
> 
> ---8<---
> 
> uint64_t r[1] = {0xffffffffffffffff};
> 
> int main(void)
> {
>         syscall(__NR_mmap, 0x20000000, 0x1000000, 3, 0x32, -1, 0);
>                                 intptr_t res = 0;
>         res = syscall(__NR_socket, 0x11, 3, 0x300);
>         if (res != -1)
>                 r[0] = res;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000040 = 0x10000;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000044 = 1;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000048 = 0xc520;
> *(uint32_t*)0x2000004c = 1;
>         syscall(__NR_setsockopt, r[0], 0x107, 0xd, 0x20000040, 0x10);
>         syscall(__NR_mmap, 0x20fed000, 0x10000, 0, 0x8811, r[0], 0);
> *(uint64_t*)0x20000340 = 2;
>         syscall(__NR_mbind, 0x20ff9000, 0x4000, 0x4002, 0x20000340,
> 0x45d4, 3);
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> ---8<---
> 
> Actually the test does:
> 
> mmap(0x20000000, 16777216, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x20000000
> socket(AF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, 768)        = 3
> setsockopt(3, SOL_PACKET, PACKET_TX_RING, {block_size=65536, block_nr=1, frame_size=50464, frame_nr=1}, 16) = 0
> mmap(0x20fed000, 65536, PROT_NONE, MAP_SHARED|MAP_FIXED|MAP_POPULATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0x20fed000
> mbind(..., MPOL_MF_STRICT|MPOL_MF_MOVE) = 0
> 
> The setsockopt() would allocate compound pages (16 pages in this test)
> for packet tx ring, then the mmap() would call packet_mmap() to map the
> pages into the user address space specified by the mmap() call.
> 
> When calling mbind(), it would scan the vma to queue the pages for
> migration to the new node.  It would split any huge page since 4.9
> doesn't support THP migration, however, the packet tx ring compound
> pages are not THP and even not movable.  So, the above bug is triggered.
> 
> However, the later kernel is not hit by this issue due to the
> commit d44d363f65780f2ac2 ("mm: don't assume anonymous pages have
> SwapBacked flag"), which just removes the PageSwapBacked check for a
> different reason.
> 
> But, there is a deeper issue.  According to the semantic of mbind(), it
> should return -EIO if MPOL_MF_MOVE or MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL was specified and
> MPOL_MF_STRICT was also specified, but the kernel was unable to move
> all existing pages in the range.  The tx ring of the packet socket is
> definitely not movable, however, mbind() returns success for this case.
> 
> Although the most socket file associates with non-movable pages, but XDP
> may have movable pages from gup.  So, it sounds not fine to just check
> the underlying file type of vma in vma_migratable().
> 
> Change migrate_page_add() to check if the page is movable or not, if it
> is unmovable, just return -EIO.  But do not abort pte walk immediately,
> since there may be pages off LRU temporarily.  We should migrate other
> pages if MPOL_MF_MOVE* is specified.  Set has_unmovable flag if some
> paged could not be not moved, then return -EIO for mbind() eventually.
> 
> With this change the above test would return -EIO as expected.
> 
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>

Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists