[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1604566549-62481-7-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:55:36 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
shakeelb@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
richard.weiyang@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
alexander.duyck@...il.com, rong.a.chen@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com,
vdavydov.dev@...il.com, shy828301@...il.com
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v21 06/19] mm/rmap: stop store reordering issue on page->mapping
Hugh Dickins and Minchan Kim observed a long time issue which
discussed here, but actully the mentioned fix missed.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150504031722.GA2768@blaptop/
The store reordering may cause problem in the scenario:
CPU 0 CPU1
do_anonymous_page
page_add_new_anon_rmap()
page->mapping = anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON
lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable()
spin_lock(lruvec->lock)
SetPageLRU()
spin_unlock(lruvec->lock)
/* idletacking judged it as LRU
* page so pass the page in
* page_idle_clear_pte_refs
*/
page_idle_clear_pte_refs
rmap_walk
if PageAnon(page)
Johannes give detailed examples how the store reordering could cause
a trouble:
The concern is the SetPageLRU may get reorder before 'page->mapping'
setting, That would make CPU 1 will observe at page->mapping after
observing PageLRU set on the page.
1. anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON
That's the in-order scenario and is fine.
2. NULL
That's possible if the page->mapping store gets reordered to occur
after SetPageLRU. That's fine too because we check for it.
3. anon_vma without the PAGE_MAPPING_ANON bit
That would be a problem and could lead to all kinds of undesirable
behavior including crashes and data corruption.
Is it possible? AFAICT the compiler is allowed to tear the store to
page->mapping and I don't see anything that would prevent it.
That said, I also don't see how the reader testing PageLRU under the
lru_lock would prevent that in the first place. AFAICT we need that
WRITE_ONCE() around the page->mapping assignment.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
---
mm/rmap.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 1b84945d655c..078d54da59d4 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1054,8 +1054,13 @@ static void __page_set_anon_rmap(struct page *page,
if (!exclusive)
anon_vma = anon_vma->root;
+ /*
+ * Prevent page->mapping from pointing to an anon_vma without
+ * the PAGE_MAPPING_ANON bit set. This could happen if the
+ * compiler stores anon_vma and then adds PAGE_MAPPING_ANON to it.
+ */
anon_vma = (void *) anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
- page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
+ WRITE_ONCE(page->mapping, (struct address_space *) anon_vma);
page->index = linear_page_index(vma, address);
}
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists