| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtWgYVOBdf7cjefoAHEQ8QYO4RtjVwjmsQCauqYf_kFkCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:08:37 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] mm: hugetlb: fix a race between
freeing and dissolving the page
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:00 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/21 8:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 06-01-21 16:47:36, Muchun Song wrote:
> >> There is a race condition between __free_huge_page()
> >> and dissolve_free_huge_page().
> >>
> >> CPU0: CPU1:
> >>
> >> // page_count(page) == 1
> >> put_page(page)
> >> __free_huge_page(page)
> >> dissolve_free_huge_page(page)
> >> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock)
> >> // PageHuge(page) && !page_count(page)
> >> update_and_free_page(page)
> >> // page is freed to the buddy
> >> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock)
> >> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock)
> >> clear_page_huge_active(page)
> >> enqueue_huge_page(page)
> >> // It is wrong, the page is already freed
> >> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock)
> >>
> >> The race windows is between put_page() and spin_lock() which
> >> is in the __free_huge_page().
> >
> > The race window reall is between put_page and dissolve_free_huge_page.
> > And the result is that the put_page path would clobber an unrelated page
> > (either free or already reused page) which is quite serious.
> > Fortunatelly pages are dissolved very rarely. I believe that user would
> > require to be privileged to hit this by intention.
> >
> >> We should make sure that the page is already on the free list
> >> when it is dissolved.
> >
> > Another option would be to check for PageHuge in __free_huge_page. Have
> > you considered that rather than add yet another state? The scope of the
> > spinlock would have to be extended. If that sounds more tricky then can
> > we check the page->lru in the dissolve path? If the page is still
> > PageHuge and reference count 0 then there shouldn't be many options
> > where it can be queued, right?
>
> The tricky part with expanding lock scope will be the potential call to
> hugepage_subpool_put_pages as it may also try to acquire the hugetlb_lock.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by 'check the page->lru'? If we knew the page
> was on the free list, then we could dissolve. But, I do not think there
> is an easy way to determine that from page->lru. A hugetlb page is either
> going to be on the active list or free list.
>
> >
> >> Fixes: c8721bbbdd36 ("mm: memory-hotplug: enable memory hotplug to handle hugepage")
> >> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> >> ---
> >> mm/hugetlb.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> index 4741d60f8955..8ff138c17129 100644
> >> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> @@ -79,6 +79,21 @@ DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hugetlb_lock);
> >> static int num_fault_mutexes;
> >> struct mutex *hugetlb_fault_mutex_table ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> >>
> >> +static inline bool PageHugeFreed(struct page *head)
> >> +{
> >> + return (unsigned long)head[3].mapping == -1U;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void SetPageHugeFreed(struct page *head)
> >> +{
> >> + head[3].mapping = (void *)-1U;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void ClearPageHugeFreed(struct page *head)
> >> +{
> >> + head[3].mapping = NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /* Forward declaration */
> >> static int hugetlb_acct_memory(struct hstate *h, long delta);
> >>
> >> @@ -1028,6 +1043,7 @@ static void enqueue_huge_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page)
> >> list_move(&page->lru, &h->hugepage_freelists[nid]);
> >> h->free_huge_pages++;
> >> h->free_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
> >> + SetPageHugeFreed(page);
> >> }
> >>
> >> static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_node_exact(struct hstate *h, int nid)
> >> @@ -1044,6 +1060,7 @@ static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_node_exact(struct hstate *h, int nid)
> >>
> >> list_move(&page->lru, &h->hugepage_activelist);
> >> set_page_refcounted(page);
> >> + ClearPageHugeFreed(page);
> >> h->free_huge_pages--;
> >> h->free_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
> >> return page;
> >> @@ -1291,6 +1308,17 @@ static inline void destroy_compound_gigantic_page(struct page *page,
> >> unsigned int order) { }
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Because we reuse the mapping field of some tail page structs, we should
> >> + * reset those mapping to initial value before @head is freed to the buddy
> >> + * allocator. The invalid value will be checked in the free_tail_pages_check().
> >> + */
>
> When I suggested using head[3].mapping for this state, I was not aware of
> this requirement. My suggestion was only following the convention used in
> PageHugeTemporary. I would not have made the suggestion if I had realized
> this was required. Sorry.
Yeah, PageHugeTemporary is lucky. free_tail_pages_check() not check
head[2].mapping.
I will revert to the previous version (using head[3].private). Thanks.
> --
> Mike Kravetz
>
> >> +static inline void reset_tail_page_mapping(struct hstate *h, struct page *head)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!hstate_is_gigantic(h))
> >> + head[3].mapping = TAIL_MAPPING;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static void update_and_free_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >> @@ -1298,6 +1326,7 @@ static void update_and_free_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page)
> >> if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())
> >> return;
> >>
> >> + reset_tail_page_mapping(h, page);
> >> h->nr_huge_pages--;
> >> h->nr_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]--;
> >> for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page(h); i++) {
> >> @@ -1504,6 +1533,7 @@ static void prep_new_huge_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page, int nid)
> >> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> >> h->nr_huge_pages++;
> >> h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
> >> + ClearPageHugeFreed(page);
> >> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -1770,6 +1800,14 @@ int dissolve_free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> >> int nid = page_to_nid(head);
> >> if (h->free_huge_pages - h->resv_huge_pages == 0)
> >> goto out;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We should make sure that the page is already on the free list
> >> + * when it is dissolved.
> >> + */
> >> + if (unlikely(!PageHugeFreed(head)))
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * Move PageHWPoison flag from head page to the raw error page,
> >> * which makes any subpages rather than the error page reusable.
> >> --
> >> 2.11.0
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists