linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures, honor failures

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, 18 Dec 2020 10:19:27 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures,
 honor failures

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 05:02:03PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> Thank you for your comments. My replies below.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 3:50 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:52:41PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Verify that there are no unpinnable (movable) pages, if so return true.
> > > + * Otherwise an unpinnable pages is found return false, and unpin all pages.
> > > + */
> > > +static bool check_and_unpin_pages(unsigned long nr_pages, struct page **pages,
> > > +                               unsigned int gup_flags)
> > > +{
> > > +     unsigned long i, step;
> > > +
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i += step) {
> > > +             struct page *head = compound_head(pages[i]);
> > > +
> > > +             step = compound_nr(head) - (pages[i] - head);
> >
> > You can't assume that all of a compound head is in the pages array,
> > this assumption would only work inside the page walkers if the page
> > was found in a PMD or something.
> 
> I am not sure I understand your comment. The compound head is not
> taken from the pages array, and not assumed to be in it. It is exactly
> the same logic as that we currently have:
> https://soleen.com/source/xref/linux/mm/gup.c?r=a00cda3f#1565

Oh, that existing logic is wrong too :( Another bug.

You can't skip pages in the pages[] array under the assumption they
are contiguous. ie the i+=step is wrong.

> >
> > > +     if (gup_flags & FOLL_PIN) {
> > > +             unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pages);
> >
> > So we throw everything away? Why? That isn't how the old algorithm worked
> 
> It is exactly like the old algorithm worked: if there are pages to be
> migrated (not pinnable pages) we unpinned everything.
> See here:
> https://soleen.com/source/xref/linux/mm/gup.c?r=a00cda3f#1603

Hmm, OK, but I'm not sure that is great either

> cleaner, and handle errors. We must unpin everything because if we
> fail, no pages should stay pinned, and also if we migrated some pages,
> the pages array must be updated, so we need to call
> __get_user_pages_locked() pin and repopulated pages array.

However the page can't be unpinned until it is put on the LRU (and I'm
hoping that the LRU is enough of a 'lock' to make that safe, no idea)

> > I don't like this at all. It shouldn't be so flakey
> >
> > Can you do migration without the LRU?
> 
> I do not think it is possible, we must isolate pages before migration.

I don't like this at all :( Lots of stuff relies on GUP, introducing a
random flakiness like this not good.

Jason