linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] hugetlb: create hugetlb_unmap_file

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: <304a6d9a-9029-8ee8-7205-d0ef4a5403bd@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:46:45 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.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 7/8] hugetlb: create hugetlb_unmap_file_folio to unmap
 single file folio

On 2022/8/30 6:37, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/29/22 10:44, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/8/25 1:57, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> Create the new routine hugetlb_unmap_file_folio that will unmap a single
>>> file folio.  This is refactored code from hugetlb_vmdelete_list.  It is
>>> modified to do locking within the routine itself and check whether the
>>> page is mapped within a specific vma before unmapping.
>>>
>>> This refactoring will be put to use and expanded upon in a subsequent
>>> patch adding vma specific locking.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>  1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> index e83fd31671b3..b93d131b0cb5 100644
>>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> @@ -371,6 +371,94 @@ static void hugetlb_delete_from_page_cache(struct page *page)
>>>  	delete_from_page_cache(page);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + * Called with i_mmap_rwsem held for inode based vma maps.  This makes
>>> + * sure vma (and vm_mm) will not go away.  We also hold the hugetlb fault
>>> + * mutex for the page in the mapping.  So, we can not race with page being
>>> + * faulted into the vma.
>>> + */
>>> +static bool hugetlb_vma_maps_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> +				unsigned long addr, struct page *page)
>>> +{
>>> +	pte_t *ptep, pte;
>>> +
>>> +	ptep = huge_pte_offset(vma->vm_mm, addr,
>>> +			huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma)));
>>> +
>>> +	if (!ptep)
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
>>> +	if (huge_pte_none(pte) || !pte_present(pte))
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	if (pte_page(pte) == page)
>>> +		return true;
>>
>> I'm thinking whether pte entry could change after we check it since huge_pte_lock is not held here.
>> But I think holding i_mmap_rwsem in writelock mode should give us such a guarantee, e.g. migration
>> entry is changed back to huge pte entry while holding i_mmap_rwsem in readlock mode.
>> Or am I miss something?
> 
> Let me think about this.  I do not think it is possible, but you ask good
> questions.
> 
> Do note that this is the same locking sequence used at the beginning of the
> page fault code where the decision to call hugetlb_no_page() is made.

Yes, hugetlb_fault() can tolerate the stale pte entry because pte entry will be re-checked later under the page table lock.
However if we see a stale pte entry here, the page might be leftover after truncated and thus break truncation? But I'm not
sure whether this will occur. Maybe the i_mmap_rwsem writelock and hugetlb_fault_mutex can prevent this issue.

Thanks,
Miaohe Lin


> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +	return false;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Can vma_offset_start/vma_offset_end overflow on 32-bit arches?
>>> + * No, because the interval tree returns us only those vmas
>>> + * which overlap the truncated area starting at pgoff,
>>> + * and no vma on a 32-bit arch can span beyond the 4GB.
>>> + */
>>> +static unsigned long vma_offset_start(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgoff_t start)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (vma->vm_pgoff < start)
>>> +		return (start - vma->vm_pgoff) << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> +	else
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static unsigned long vma_offset_end(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgoff_t end)
>>> +{
>>> +	unsigned long t_end;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!end)
>>> +		return vma->vm_end;
>>> +
>>> +	t_end = ((end - vma->vm_pgoff) << PAGE_SHIFT) + vma->vm_start;
>>> +	if (t_end > vma->vm_end)
>>> +		t_end = vma->vm_end;
>>> +	return t_end;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Called with hugetlb fault mutex held.  Therefore, no more mappings to
>>> + * this folio can be created while executing the routine.
>>> + */
>>> +static void hugetlb_unmap_file_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>> +					struct address_space *mapping,
>>> +					struct folio *folio, pgoff_t index)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct rb_root_cached *root = &mapping->i_mmap;
>>> +	struct page *page = &folio->page;
>>> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>>> +	unsigned long v_start;
>>> +	unsigned long v_end;
>>> +	pgoff_t start, end;
>>> +
>>> +	start = index * pages_per_huge_page(h);
>>> +	end = ((index + 1) * pages_per_huge_page(h));
>>
>> It seems the outer parentheses is unneeded?
> 
> Correct.  Thanks.
>