linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:14:38 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
        arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock

On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 12:53:36PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index d40bf8a5e19e..294dd44b2198 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -627,12 +627,16 @@ static inline void vma_write_lock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  	 * mm->mm_lock_seq can't be concurrently modified.
>  	 */
>  	mm_lock_seq = READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq);
> -	if (vma->vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq)
> +	if (vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == mm_lock_seq)
>  		return;
>  
> -	down_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> -	vma->vm_lock_seq = mm_lock_seq;
> -	up_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> +	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&vma->vm_lock->count, 0, -1))
> +		wait_event(vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait,
> +			   atomic_cmpxchg(&vma->vm_lock->count, 0, -1) == 0);
> +	vma->vm_lock->lock_seq = mm_lock_seq;
> +	/* Write barrier to ensure lock_seq change is visible before count */
> +	smp_wmb();
> +	atomic_set(&vma->vm_lock->count, 0);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -643,20 +647,28 @@ static inline void vma_write_lock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  static inline bool vma_read_trylock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  {
>  	/* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result. */
> -	if (vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
> +	if (vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock) == 0))
> +	if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_unless_negative(&vma->vm_lock->count)))
>  		return false;
>  
> +	/* If atomic_t overflows, restore and fail to lock. */
> +	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&vma->vm_lock->count) < 0)) {
> +		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> +			wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Overflow might produce false locked result.
>  	 * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
>  	 * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
>  	 * modification invalidates all existing locks.
>  	 */
> -	if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
> -		up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> +	if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock->lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
> +		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> +			wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
>  		return false;
>  	}

With this change readers can cause writers to starve.
What about checking waitqueue_active() before or after increasing
vma->vm_lock->count?

--
Thanks,
Hyeonggon