linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in _

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 04:59:27 -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 Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:54:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/26 下午9:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks
> > > > last try).
> > > Ok, I play a little with this. And it works so far. Will do more testing
> > > tomorrow.
> > > 
> > > One reason could be I switch to use get_user_pages_fast() to
> > > __get_user_pages_fast() which doesn't need mmap_sem.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > OK that sounds good. If we also set a flag to make
> > vhost_exceeds_weight exit, then I think it will be all good.
> 
> 
> After some experiments, I came up two methods:
> 
> 1) switch to use vq->mutex, then we must take the vq lock during range
> checking (but I don't see obvious slowdown for 16vcpus + 16queues). Setting
> flags during weight check should work but it still can't address the worst
> case: wait for the page to be swapped in. Is this acceptable?
> 
> 2) using current RCU but replace synchronize_rcu() with vhost_work_flush().
> The worst case is the same as 1) but we can check range without holding any
> locks.
> 
> Which one did you prefer?
> 
> Thanks

I would rather we start with 1 and switch to 2 after we
can show some gain.

But the worst case needs to be addressed.  How about sending a signal to
the vhost thread?  We will need to fix up error handling (I think that
at the moment it will error out in that case, handling this as EFAULT -
and we don't want to drop packets if we can help it, and surely not
enter any error states.  In particular it might be especially tricky if
we wrote into userspace memory and are now trying to log the write.
I guess we can disable the optimization if log is enabled?).

-- 
MST