linux-kernel - Re: cma_alloc(), add sleep-and-retry for temporary page pinning

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:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:01:43 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     cgoldswo@...eaurora.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pratikp@...eaurora.org,
        pdaly@...eaurora.org, sudraja@...eaurora.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cma_alloc(), add sleep-and-retry for temporary page pinning

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:20:47 -0700 cgoldswo@...eaurora.org wrote:

> On 2020-08-06 18:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed,  5 Aug 2020 19:56:21 -0700 Chris Goldsworthy
> > <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On mobile devices, failure to allocate from a CMA area constitutes a
> >> functional failure.  Sometimes during CMA allocations, we have 
> >> observed
> >> that pages in a CMA area allocated through alloc_pages(), that we're 
> >> trying
> >> to migrate away to make room for a CMA allocation, are temporarily 
> >> pinned.
> >> This temporary pinning can occur when a process that owns the pinned 
> >> page
> >> is being forked (the example is explained further in the commit text).
> >> This patch addresses this issue by adding a sleep-and-retry loop in
> >> cma_alloc() . There's another example we know of similar to the above 
> >> that
> >> occurs during exit_mmap() (in zap_pte_range() specifically), but I 
> >> need to
> >> determine if this is still relevant today.
> > 
> 
> > Sounds fairly serious but boy, we're late for 5.9.
> > 
> > I can queue it for 5.10 with a cc:stable so that it gets backported
> > into earlier kernels a couple of months from now, if we think the
> > seriousness justifies backporting(?).
> > 
> 
> Queuing this seems like the best way to proceed

I'd really prefer not.  It's very hacky and it isn't a fix - it's a
likelihood-reducer.

> > 
> > And...  it really is a sad little patch, isn't it?  Instead of fixing
> > the problem, it reduces the problem's probability by 5x.  Can't we do
> > better than this?
> 
> I have one alternative in mind.  I have been able to review the 
> exit_mmap()
> case, so before proceeding, let's do a breakdown of the problem: we can
> categorize the pinning issue we're trying to address here as being one 
> of
> (1) incrementing _refcount and getting context-switched out before
> incrementing _mapcount (applies to forking a process / copy_one_pte()), 
> and
> (2) decrementing _mapcount and getting context-switched out before
> decrementing _refcount (applies to tearing down a process / 
> exit_mmap()).
> So, one alternative would be to insert preempt_disable/enable() calls at
> affected sites. So, for the copy_one_pte() pinning case, we could do the
> following inside of copy_one_pte():
> 
>          if (page) {
> +               preempt_disable();
>                  get_page(page);
>                  page_dup_rmap(page, false);
> +               preempt_enable();
>                  rss[mm_counter(page)]++;
>          }

This would make the retry loop much more reliable, and
preempt_disable() is fast.  Such additions should be clearly commented
(a bare preempt_disable() explains nothing).  Perhaps by wrapping the
prerempt_disable() in a suitably-named wrapper function.

But it's still really unpleasant.

> 
> The good thing about this patch is that it has been stable in our kernel
> for four years (though for some SoCs we increased the retry counts).  

That's discouraging!

> One
> thing to stress is that there are other instances of CMA page pinning, 
> that
> this patch isn't attempting to address.

Oh.  How severe are these?

> Please let me know if you're 
> okay
> with queuing this for the 5.10 merge window - if you are, I can add an
> option to configure the number of retries, and will resend the patch 
> once
> the 5.9 merge window closes.

Well.  Why not wait infinitely?  Because there are other sources of CMA
page pinning, I guess.


Could we take a sleeping lock on the exit_mmap() path and on the
migration path?  So that the migration path automatically waits for
the exact amount of time?