linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] hugetlb: add vma based lock for pmd sharing

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: <Yw08j5m62is7kqSg@monkey>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:24:15 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@...ersystems.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] hugetlb: add vma based lock for pmd sharing

On 08/27/22 17:30, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/8/25 1:57, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > Allocate a rw semaphore and hang off vm_private_data for
> > synchronization use by vmas that could be involved in pmd sharing.  Only
> > add infrastructure for the new lock here.  Actual use will be added in
> > subsequent patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > +static void hugetlb_vma_lock_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Only present in sharable vmas.  See comment in
> > +	 * __unmap_hugepage_range_final about the neeed to check both
> 
> s/neeed/need/
> 
> > +	 * VM_SHARED and VM_MAYSHARE in free path
> 
> I think there might be some wrong checks around this patch. As above comment said, we
> need to check both flags, so we should do something like below instead?
> 
> 	if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED) == (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED)))
> 
> > +	 */

Thanks.  I will update.

> > +	if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED)))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	if (vma->vm_private_data) {
> > +		kfree(vma->vm_private_data);
> > +		vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +	struct rw_semaphore *vma_sema;
> > +
> > +	/* Only establish in (flags) sharable vmas */
> > +	if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/* Should never get here with non-NULL vm_private_data */
> 
> We can get here with non-NULL vm_private_data when called from hugetlb_vm_op_open during fork?

Right!

In fork, We allocate a new semaphore in hugetlb_dup_vma_private, and then
shortly after call hugetlb_vm_op_open.

It works as is, and I can update the comment.  However, I wonder if we should
just clear vm_private_data in hugetlb_dup_vma_private and let hugetlb_vm_op_open
do the allocation.

> 
> Also there's one missing change on comment:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index d0617d64d718..4bc844a1d312 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -863,7 +863,7 @@ __weak unsigned long vma_mmu_pagesize(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>   * faults in a MAP_PRIVATE mapping. Only the process that called mmap()
>   * is guaranteed to have their future faults succeed.
>   *
> - * With the exception of reset_vma_resv_huge_pages() which is called at fork(),
> + * With the exception of hugetlb_dup_vma_private() which is called at fork(),
>   * the reserve counters are updated with the hugetlb_lock held. It is safe
>   * to reset the VMA at fork() time as it is not in use yet and there is no
>   * chance of the global counters getting corrupted as a result of the values.
> 
> 
> Otherwise this patch looks good to me. Thanks.

Will update, Thank you!
-- 
Mike Kravetz