linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Fix warning in move_normal

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: <CA+G9fYuO+ZHDbWR7fqfFoFj2HcSSmDYSBnQBm2FmY4Sj19Rg+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:53:23 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Fix warning in move_normal_pmd()

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 12:07, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 04:49, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:04 PM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It *might* be as simple as this incremental thing on top
> >
> > No, it needs to be
> >
> > +       if (*old_addr + *len < old->vm_end)
> > +               return;
> >
> > in try_to_align_end(), of course.
> >
> > Now I'm going for a lie-down, because this cross-eyed thing isn't working.
>
>
> Just want to double check.
> Here is the diff after those two patches applied. Please correct me if
> it is wrong.
> This patch applied on top of Linus mainline master branch.
> I am starting my test cycles.

Sorry this patch (the below pasted ) did not solve the reported problem.
I still notice warning

[  760.004318] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  760.009039] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 461 at mm/mremap.c:230
move_page_tables+0x818/0x840
[  760.016848] Modules linked in: x86_pkg_temp_thermal fuse
[  760.022220] CPU: 3 PID: 461 Comm: true Not tainted 5.8.0-rc5 #1
[  760.028198] Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5019S-ML/X11SSH-F, BIOS
2.2 05/23/2018
[  760.035651] EIP: move_page_tables+0x818/0x840

ref:
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1574277#L12221

>
> ---
>  mm/mremap.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 73 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> index 6b153dc05fe4..4961c18d2008 100644
> --- a/mm/mremap.c
> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> @@ -254,6 +254,77 @@ static bool move_normal_pmd(struct vm_area_struct
> *vma, unsigned long old_addr,
>
>   return true;
>  }
> +
> +#define ADDR_BEFORE_PREV(addr, vma) \
> + ((vma)->vm_prev && (addr) < (vma)->vm_prev->vm_end)
> +
> +static inline void try_to_align_start(unsigned long *len,
> + struct vm_area_struct *old, unsigned long *old_addr,
> + struct vm_area_struct *new, unsigned long *new_addr)
> +{
> + if (*old_addr > old->vm_start)
> + return;
> +
> + if (ADDR_BEFORE_PREV(*old_addr & PMD_MASK, old))
> + return;
> +
> + if (ADDR_BEFORE_PREV(*new_addr & PMD_MASK, new))
> + return;
> +
> + /* Bingo! */
> + *len += *new_addr & ~PMD_MASK;
> + *old_addr &= PMD_MASK;
> + *new_addr &= PMD_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * When aligning the end, avoid ALIGN() (which can overflow
> + * if the user space is the full address space, and overshoot
> + * the vm_start of the next vma).
> + *
> + * Align the upper limit down instead, and check that it's not
> + * in the same PMD as the end.
> + */
> +#define ADDR_AFTER_NEXT(addr, vma) \
> + ((vma)->vm_next && (addr) > (PMD_MASK & (vma)->vm_next->vm_start))
> +
> +static inline void try_to_align_end(unsigned long *len,
> + struct vm_area_struct *old, unsigned long *old_addr,
> + struct vm_area_struct *new, unsigned long *new_addr)
> +{
> + if (*old_addr < old->vm_end)
> + return;
> +
> + if (ADDR_AFTER_NEXT(*old_addr + *len, old))
> + return;
> +
> + if (ADDR_AFTER_NEXT(*new_addr + *len, new))
> + return;
> +
> + /* Mutual alignment means this is same for new/old addr */
> + *len = ALIGN(*new_addr + *len, PMD_SIZE) - *new_addr;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * The PMD move case is much more efficient, so if we have the
> + * mutually aligned case, try to see if we can extend the
> + * beginning and end to be aligned too.
> + *
> + * The pointer dereferences look bad, but with inlining, the
> + * compiler will sort it out.
> + */
> +static inline void try_to_align_range(unsigned long *len,
> + struct vm_area_struct *old, unsigned long *old_addr,
> + struct vm_area_struct *new, unsigned long *new_addr)
> +{
> + if ((*old_addr ^ *new_addr) & ~PMD_MASK)
> + return;
> +
> + try_to_align_start(len, old, old_addr, new, new_addr);
> + try_to_align_end(len, old, old_addr, new, new_addr);
> +}
> +#else
> +#define try_to_align_range(len,old,olda,new,newa) do { } while(0);
>  #endif
>
>  unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -272,6 +343,8 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   old_addr, old_end);
>   mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
>
> + try_to_align_range(&len, vma, &old_addr, new_vma, &new_addr);
> +
>   for (; old_addr < old_end; old_addr += extent, new_addr += extent) {
>   cond_resched();
>   next = (old_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> --
> 2.27.0
>
> >
> >               Linus
>
> - Naresh