linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/12] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte

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: <6fc2066e-1386-5fc4-44c6-d84404c2ef25@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:31:18 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/12] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset()
 thread-safe for pmd unshare

On 23.11.22 19:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:21:30AM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 11/23/22 10:09, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:40:40AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let me try understand the basic problem first:
>>>>
>>>> hugetlb walks page tables semi-lockless: while we hold the mmap lock, we
>>>> don't grab the page table locks. That's very hugetlb specific handling and I
>>>> assume hugetlb uses different mechanisms to sync against MADV_DONTNEED,
>>>> concurrent page fault s... but that's no news. hugetlb is weird in many ways
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> So, IIUC, you want a mechanism to synchronize against PMD unsharing. Can't
>>>> we use some very basic locking for that?
>>>
>>> Yes we can in most cases.  Please refer to above paragraph [1] where I
>>> referred Mike's recent work on vma lock.  That's the basic locking we need
>>> so far to protect pmd unsharing.  I'll attach the link too in the next
>>> post, which is here:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220914221810.95771-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using RCU / disabling local irqs seems a bit excessive because we *are*
>>>> holding the mmap lock and only care about concurrent unsharing
>>>
>>> The series wanted to address where the vma lock is not easy to take.  It
>>> originates from when I was reading Mike's other patch, I forgot why I did
>>> that but I just noticed there's some code path that we may not want to take
>>> a sleepable lock, e.g. in follow page code.
>>
>> Yes, it was the patch suggested by David,
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221030225825.40872-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com/
>>
>> The issue was that FOLL_NOWAIT could be passed into follow_page_mask.  If so,
>> then we do not want potentially sleep on the mutex.
>>
>> Since you both are on this thread, I thought of/noticed a related issue.  In
>> follow_hugetlb_page, it looks like we can call hugetlb_fault if FOLL_NOWAIT
>> is set.  hugetlb_fault certainly has the potential for sleeping.  Is this also
>> a similar issue?
> 
> Yeah maybe the clean way to do this is when FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT is set
> we should always try to not sleep at all.

hva_to_pfn_slow() that sets FOLL_NOWAIT calls get_user_pages_unlocked(), 
which will just do a straight mmap_read_lock().

The interpretation of FOLL_NOWAIT should not be "don't take any 
sleepable locks" but instead more like "don't wait for a page to get 
swapped in".

#define FOLL_NOWAIT  0x20  /* if a disk transfer is needed, start the IO


I did not read the full replies yet (sorry, busy hacking :) ) but *any* 
code path that already takes the mmap_read_lock() can just take whatever 
other lock we want -- IMHO. No need to over-complicate our code trying 
to avoid locks in that case.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb