linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier

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: <20190724185617.GE6410@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:56:17 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range

On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime,
> > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking
> > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the
> > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end
> > callback.
> 
> Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in
> the commit message, but lets be more explicit.
> 
> We have *two* notifiers registered to the mm, A and B:
> 
> A invalidate_range_start: (has no blocking)
>     spin_lock()
>     counter++
>     spin_unlock()
> 
> A invalidate_range_end:
>     spin_lock()
>     counter--
>     spin_unlock()
> 
> And this one:
> 
> B invalidate_range_start: (has blocking)
>     if (!try_mutex_lock())
>         return -EAGAIN;
>     counter++
>     mutex_unlock()
> 
> B invalidate_range_end:
>     spin_lock()
>     counter--
>     spin_unlock()
> 
> So now the oom path does:
> 
> invalidate_range_start_non_blocking:
>  for each mn:
>    a->invalidate_range_start
>    b->invalidate_range_start
>    rc = EAGAIN
> 
> Now we SKIP A's invalidate_range_end even though A had no idea this
> would happen has state that needs to be unwound. A is broken.
> 
> B survived just fine.
> 
> A and B *alone* work fine, combined they fail.

But that requires that they share some state, right?

> When the commit was landed you can use KVM as an example of A and RDMA
> ODP as an example of B

Could you point me where those two share the state please? KVM seems to
be using kvm->mmu_notifier_count but I do not know where to look for the
RDMA...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs