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]

Message-ID: <CA+CK2bC=o1-qW5+d-Lud9qN1937PC4Jxf_oyxwVrKby=mH5WyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:10:27 -0500
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
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 Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:05 PM Pavel Tatashin
<pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh, that existing logic is wrong too :( Another bug.
> > >
> > > I do not think there is a bug.
> > >
> > > > You can't skip pages in the pages[] array under the assumption they
> > > > are contiguous. ie the i+=step is wrong.
> > >
> > > If pages[i] is part of a compound page, the other parts of this page
> > > must be sequential in this array for this compound page
> >
> > That is true only if the PMD points to the page. If the PTE points to
> > a tail page then there is no requirement that other PTEs are
> > contiguous with the compount page.
> >
> > At this point we have no idea if the GUP logic got this compound page
> > as a head page in a PMD or as a tail page from a PTE, so we can't
> > assume a contiguous run of addresses.
>
> I see, I will fix this bug in an upstream as a separate patch in my
> series, and keep the fix when my fixes are applied.
>
> >
> > Look at split_huge_pmd() - it doesn't break up the compound page it
> > just converts the PMD to a PTE array and scatters the tail pages to
> > the PTE.

Hi Jason,

I've been thinking about this some more. Again, I am not sure this is
a bug. I understand split_huge_pmd() may split the PMD size page into
PTEs and leave the compound page intact. However, in order for pages[]
to have non sequential addresses in compound page, those PTEs must
also be migrated after split_huge_pmd(), however when we migrate them
we will either migrate the whole compound page or do
split_huge_page_to_list() which will in turn do ClearPageCompound().
Please let me know if I am missing something.

Thank you,
Pasha

>
> Got it, unfortunately the fix will deoptimize the code by having to
> check every page if it is part of a previous compound page or not.
>
> >
> > I understand Matt is pushing on this idea more by having compound
> > pages in the page cache, but still mapping tail pages when required.
> >
> > > This is actually standard migration procedure, elsewhere in the kernel
> > > we migrate pages in exactly the same fashion: isolate and later
> > > migrate. The isolation works for LRU only pages.
> >
> > But do other places cause a userspace visible random failure when LRU
> > isolation fails?
>
> Makes sense, I will remove maximum retries for isolation, and retry
> indefinitely, the same as it is done during memory hot-remove. So, we
> will fail only when migration fails.
>
> >
> > I don't like it at all, what is the user supposed to do?
> >
> > Jason