Message-ID: <20190723032024-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:23:20 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        christian@...uner.io, davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:47:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/23 下午1:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:01:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/22 下午4:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:24:24PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2019/7/21 下午8:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:02:52AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 03:08:00AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> > > > > > > > syzbot has bisected this bug to:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > commit 7f466032dc9e5a61217f22ea34b2df932786bbfc
> > > > > > > > Author: Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > > Date:   Fri May 24 08:12:18 2019 +0000
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >        vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > bisection log:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=149a8a20600000
> > > > > > > > start commit:   6d21a41b Add linux-next specific files for 20190718
> > > > > > > > git tree:       linux-next
> > > > > > > > final crash:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=169a8a20600000
> > > > > > > > console output:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=129a8a20600000
> > > > > > > > kernel config:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=3430a151e1452331
> > > > > > > > dashboard link:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e58112d71f77113ddb7b
> > > > > > > > syz repro:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=10139e68600000
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Reported-by:syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 7f466032dc9e ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual
> > > > > > > > address")
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > For information about bisection process see:https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
> > > > > > > OK I poked at this for a bit, I see several things that
> > > > > > > we need to fix, though I'm not yet sure it's the reason for
> > > > > > > the failures:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1. mmu_notifier_register shouldn't be called from vhost_vring_set_num_addr
> > > > > > >       That's just a bad hack, in particular I don't think device
> > > > > > >       mutex is taken and so poking at two VQs will corrupt
> > > > > > >       memory.
> > > > > > >       So what to do? How about a per vq notifier?
> > > > > > >       Of course we also have synchronize_rcu
> > > > > > >       in the notifier which is slow and is now going to be called twice.
> > > > > > >       I think call_rcu would be more appropriate here.
> > > > > > >       We then need rcu_barrier on module unload.
> > > > > > >       OTOH if we make pages linear with map then we are good
> > > > > > >       with kfree_rcu which is even nicer.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2. Doesn't map leak after vhost_map_unprefetch?
> > > > > > >       And why does it poke at contents of the map?
> > > > > > >       No one should use it right?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 3. notifier unregister happens last in vhost_dev_cleanup,
> > > > > > >       but register happens first. This looks wrong to me.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 4. OK so we use the invalidate count to try and detect that
> > > > > > >       some invalidate is in progress.
> > > > > > >       I am not 100% sure why do we care.
> > > > > > >       Assuming we do, uaddr can change between start and end
> > > > > > >       and then the counter can get negative, or generally
> > > > > > >       out of sync.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So what to do about all this?
> > > > > > > I am inclined to say let's just drop the uaddr optimization
> > > > > > > for now. E.g. kvm invalidates unconditionally.
> > > > > > > 3 should be fixed independently.
> > > > > > Above implements this but is only build-tested.
> > > > > > Jason, pls take a look. If you like the approach feel
> > > > > > free to take it from here.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One thing the below does not have is any kind of rate-limiting.
> > > > > > Given it's so easy to restart I'm thinking it makes sense
> > > > > > to add a generic infrastructure for this.
> > > > > > Can be a separate patch I guess.
> > > > > I don't get why must use kfree_rcu() instead of synchronize_rcu() here.
> > > > synchronize_rcu has very high latency on busy systems.
> > > > It is not something that should be used on a syscall path.
> > > > KVM had to switch to SRCU to keep it sane.
> > > > Otherwise one guest can trivially slow down another one.
> > > 
> > > I think you mean the synchronize_rcu_expedited()? Rethink of the code, the
> > > synchronize_rcu() in ioctl() could be removed, since it was serialized with
> > > memory accessor.
> > 
> > Really let's just use kfree_rcu. It's way cleaner: fire and forget.
> 
> 
> Looks not, you need rate limit the fire as you've figured out?

See the discussion that followed. Basically no, it's good enough
already and is only going to be better.

> And in fact,
> the synchronization is not even needed, does it help if I leave a comment to
> explain?

Let's try to figure it out in the mail first. I'm pretty sure the
current logic is wrong.

> 
> > 
> > > Btw, for kvm ioctl it still uses synchronize_rcu() in kvm_vcpu_ioctl(),
> > > (just a little bit more hard to trigger):
> > 
> > AFAIK these never run in response to guest events.
> > So they can take very long and guests still won't crash.
> 
> 
> What if guest manages to escape to qemu?
> 
> Thanks

Then it's going to be slow. Why do we care?
What we do not want is synchronize_rcu that guest is blocked on.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > >      case KVM_RUN: {
> > > ...
> > >          if (unlikely(oldpid != task_pid(current))) {
> > >              /* The thread running this VCPU changed. */
> > >              struct pid *newpid;
> > > 
> > >              r = kvm_arch_vcpu_run_pid_change(vcpu);
> > >              if (r)
> > >                  break;
> > > 
> > >              newpid = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > >              rcu_assign_pointer(vcpu->pid, newpid);
> > >              if (oldpid)
> > >                  synchronize_rcu();
> > >              put_pid(oldpid);
> > >          }
> > > ...
> > >          break;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@...hat.com>
> > > > > Let me try to figure out the root cause then decide whether or not to go for
> > > > > this way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > The root cause of the crash is relevant, but we still need
> > > > to fix issues 1-4.
> > > > 
> > > > More issues (my patch tries to fix them too):
> > > > 
> > > > 5. page not dirtied when mappings are torn down outside
> > > >      of invalidate callback
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 6. potential cross-VM DOS by one guest keeping system busy
> > > >      and increasing synchronize_rcu latency to the point where
> > > >      another guest stars timing out and crashes
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > This will be addressed after I remove the synchronize_rcu() from ioctl path.
> > > 
> > > Thanks

Powered by blists - more mailing lists