[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5154292a-4c55-28cd-0935-82441e512fc3@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:25:47 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] hugetlb: fix vma lock handling during split vma and
range unmapping
Sorry for late respond. It's a really busy week. :)
On 2022/10/5 9:17, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> The hugetlb vma lock hangs off the vm_private_data field and is specific
> to the vma. When vm_area_dup() is called as part of vma splitting, the
Oh, I checked vm_area_dup() from callsite of copy_vma and dup_mmap but split_vma
is missed... And yes, vma splitting can occur but vma merging won't for hugetlb
vma. Thanks for catching this, Mike.
> vma lock pointer is copied to the new vma. This will result in issues
> such as double freeing of the structure. Update the hugetlb open vm_ops
> to allocate a new vma lock for the new vma.
>
> The routine __unmap_hugepage_range_final unconditionally unset
> VM_MAYSHARE to prevent subsequent pmd sharing. hugetlb_vma_lock_free
> attempted to anticipate this by checking both VM_MAYSHARE and VM_SHARED.
> However, if only VM_MAYSHARE was set we would miss the free. With the
> introduction of the vma lock, a vma can not participate in pmd sharing
> if vm_private_data is NULL. Instead of clearing VM_MAYSHARE in
> __unmap_hugepage_range_final, free the vma lock to prevent sharing. Also,
> update the sharing code to make sure vma lock is indeed a condition for
> pmd sharing. hugetlb_vma_lock_free can then key off VM_MAYSHARE and not
> miss any vmas.
>
> Fixes: "hugetlb: add vma based lock for pmd sharing"
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> mm/memory.c | 4 ----
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 4443e87e814b..0129d371800c 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4612,7 +4612,14 @@ static void hugetlb_vm_op_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> kref_get(&resv->refs);
> }
>
> - hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(vma);
> + /*
> + * vma_lock structure for sharable mappings is vma specific.
> + * Clear old pointer (if copied via vm_area_dup) and create new.
> + */
> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) {
> + vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
> + hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(vma);
> + }
IMHO this would lead to memoryleak. Think about the below move_vma() flow:
move_vma
copy_vma
new_vma = vm_area_dup(vma);
new_vma->vm_ops->open(new_vma); --> new_vma has its own vma lock.
is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)
clear_vma_resv_huge_pages
hugetlb_dup_vma_private --> vma->vm_private_data is set to NULL
without put ref. So vma lock is *leaked*?
Other part looks good to me. Thanks for your work.
Thanks,
Miaohe Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists