linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

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:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:07:22 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:59:21PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:31:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Sat 11-01-20 03:03:52, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:30:54PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > > > As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
>> > > > Current implementation may face a race condition.
>> > > > 
>> > > > For example, the potential race would be:
>> > > > 
>> > > >     CPU1                      CPU2
>> > > >     mem_cgroup_move_account   split_huge_page_to_list
>> > > >       !list_empty
>> > > >                                 lock
>> > > >                                 !list_empty
>> > > >                                 list_del
>> > > >                                 unlock
>> > > >       lock
>> > > >       # !list_empty might not hold anymore
>> > > >       list_del_init
>> > > >       unlock
>> > > 
>> > > I don't think this particular race is possible. Both parties take page
>> > > lock before messing with deferred queue, but anytway:
>> > > 
>> > > Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>> > 
>> > I am confused, if the above race is not possible then what would be a
>> > real race? We really do not want to have a patch with a misleading
>> > changelog, do we?
>> 
>> The alternative is to make sure that all page_deferred_list() called with
>> page lock taken.
>> 
>> I'll look into it.
>
>split_huge_page_to_list() has page lock taken.
>
>free_transhuge_page() is in the free path and doesn't susceptible to the
>race.
>
>deferred_split_scan() is trickier. list_move() should be safe against
>list_empty() as it will not produce false-positive list_empty().
>list_del_init() *should* (correct me if I'm wrong) be safe because the page
>is freeing and memcg will not touch the page anymore.
>
>deferred_split_huge_page() is a problematic one. It called from
>page_remove_rmap() path witch does require page lock. I don't see any
>obvious way to exclude race with mem_cgroup_move_account() here.
>Anybody else?

If my understanding is correct, the reason is deferred_split_huge_page()
doesn't has page lock taken, right?

>
>Wei, could you rewrite the commit message with deferred_split_huge_page()
>as a race source instead of split_huge_page_to_list()?
>
>-- 
> Kirill A. Shutemov

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me