linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: prevent a race between process_mrelease and exit

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: <CAJuCfpFT4-mdHHZ2i43hyJQ4dRKb7sRwnAL8GfRnZu3ecE26Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 12:02:37 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: prevent a race between process_mrelease and exit_mmap

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:50 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue 09-11-21 11:37:06, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:26 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 09-11-21 11:01:02, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Discussing how the patch I want to post works for maple trees that
> > > > Matthew is working on, I've got a question:
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, according to Michal's post here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20170725154514.GN26723@dhcp22.suse.cz,
> > > > unmap_vmas() can race with other mmap_lock read holders (including
> > > > oom_reap_task_mm()) with no issues.
> > > > Maple tree patchset requires rcu read lock or the mmap semaphore be
> > > > held (read or write side) when walking the tree, including inside
> > > > unmap_vmas(). When asked, he told me that he is not sure why it's
> > > > currently "safe" to walk the vma->vm_next list in unmap_vmas() while
> > > > another thread is reaping the mm.
> > > > Michal (or maybe someone else), could you please clarify why
> > > > unmap_vmas() can safely race with oom_reap_task_mm()? Or maybe my
> > > > understanding was wrong?
> > >
> > > I cannot really comment on the mapple tree part. But the existing
> > > synchronization between oom reaper and exit_mmap is based on
> > > - oom_reaper takes mmap_sem for reading
> > > - exit_mmap sets MMF_OOM_SKIP and takes the exclusive mmap_sem before
> > >   unmap_vmas.
> > >
> > > The oom_reaper therefore can either unmap the address space if the lock
> > > is taken before exit_mmap or it would it would bale out on MMF_OOM_SKIP
> > > if it takes the lock afterwards. So the reaper cannot race with
> > > unmap_vmas.
> >
> > I see. So, it's the combination of MMF_OOM_SKIP and mmap_lock working
> > as a barrier which prevent them from racing with each other...
> > I wasn't sure how
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20170724072332.31903-1-mhocko@kernel.org/
> > was implementing this synchronization because it would take mmap_sem
> > write side after unmap_vmas() and IIUC there was no
> > "mmap_lock_write(); mmap_unlock_write();" sequence in exit_mmap at
> > that time. I'll need to checkout the old sources to figure this out.
>
> My memory is rather dimm but AFAIR the main problem was freeing page
> tables and freeing vmas not unmap_vmas. That one was no modifying the
> vma list. Essentially it was just a slightly modified madvise don't
> need. So that part was allowed to race with oom_reaper.

So, both unmap_vmas and __oom_reap_task_mm do not modify vma list and
therefore can execute concurrently. That makes sense, thanks.

Then I guess, if we want to be semantically correct in exit_mmap(), we
would have to take mmap_read_lock before unmap_vmas, then drop it and
take mmap_write_lock before free_pgtables.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs