linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] mm/rmap: Split try_to_munlock from try_to

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: <20210605033926.pkeq2saomieebrqa@revolver>
Date:   Sat, 5 Jun 2021 03:39:35 +0000
From:   Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
CC:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "bskeggs@...hat.com" <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        "rcampbell@...dia.com" <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhubbard@...dia.com" <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "jglisse@...hat.com" <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] mm/rmap: Split try_to_munlock from try_to_unmap

* Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> [210604 20:41]:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> [210525 19:45]:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:40 AM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Walks the vma's mapping a page and mlocks the page if any locked vma's are
> > > > > + * found. Once one is found the page is locked and the scan can be terminated.
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Can you please add that this requires the mmap_sem() lock to the
> > > > comments?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why does this require mmap_sem() lock? Also mmap_sem() lock of which mm_struct?
> >
> >
> > Doesn't the mlock_vma_page() require the mmap_sem() for reading?  The
> > mm_struct in vma->vm_mm;
> >
> 
> We are traversing all the vmas where this page is mapped of possibly
> different mm_structs. I don't think we want to take mmap_sem() of all
> those mm_structs. The commit b87537d9e2fe ("mm: rmap use pte lock not
> mmap_sem to set PageMlocked") removed exactly that.
> 
> >
> > From what I can see, at least the following paths have mmap_lock held
> > for writing:
> >
> > munlock_vma_pages_range() from __do_munmap()
> > munlokc_vma_pages_range() from remap_file_pages()
> >
> 
> The following path does not hold mmap_sem:
> 
> exit_mmap() -> munlock_vma_pages_all() -> munlock_vma_pages_range().

Isn't this the benign race referenced by Hugh in the commit you point to
below?

> 
> I would really suggest all to carefully read the commit message of
> b87537d9e2fe ("mm: rmap use pte lock not mmap_sem to set
> PageMlocked").
> 
> Particularly the following paragraph:
> ...
>     Vlastimil Babka points out another race which this patch protects against.
>      try_to_unmap_one() might reach its mlock_vma_page() TestSetPageMlocked a
>     moment after munlock_vma_pages_all() did its Phase 1 TestClearPageMlocked:
>     leaving PageMlocked and unevictable when it should be evictable.  mmap_sem
>     is ineffective because exit_mmap() does not hold it; page lock ineffective
>     because __munlock_pagevec() only takes it afterwards, in Phase 2; pte lock
>     is effective because __munlock_pagevec_fill() takes it to get the page,
>     after VM_LOCKED was cleared from vm_flags, so visible to try_to_unmap_one.
> ...

So this is saying the race with exit_mmap() isn't benign after all?

> 
> Alistair, please bring back the VM_LOCKED check with pte lock held and
> the comment "Holding pte lock, we do *not* need mmap_lock here".
> 
> One positive outcome of this cleanup patch is the removal of
> unnecessary invalidation (unmapping for kvm case) of secondary mmus.