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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:24:43 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 2019/7/29 下午4:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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.


Yes.


> 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?).


This may work but requires a lot of changes. And actually it's the price 
of using vq mutex. Actually, the critical section should be rather 
small, e.g just inside memory accessors.

I wonder whether or not just do synchronize our self like:

static void inline vhost_inc_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref);

         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref + 1);
smp_rmb();
}

static void inline vhost_dec_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
         int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref);

smp_wmb();
         WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref - 1);
}

static void inline vhost_wait_for_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
         while (READ_ONCE(vq->ref));
mb();
}


Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead?

Thanks

>