[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8bpfzYvWq/3ttr+@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:31:27 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 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, 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,
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 Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:26:32AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:12 AM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:55 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > rw_semaphore is a sizable structure of 40 bytes and consumes
> > > considerable space for each vm_area_struct. However vma_lock has
> > > two important specifics which can be used to replace rw_semaphore
> > > with a simpler structure:
> > [...]
> > > static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > {
> > > - up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> > > + wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > > }
> >
> > I haven't properly reviewed this, but this bit looks like a
> > use-after-free because you're accessing the vma after dropping your
> > reference on it. You'd have to first look up the vma->vm_mm, then do
> > the atomic_dec_and_test(), and afterwards do the wake_up() without
> > touching the vma. Or alternatively wrap the whole thing in an RCU
> > read-side critical section if the VMA is freed with RCU delay.
>
> vm_lock->count does not control the lifetime of the VMA, it's a
> counter of how many readers took the lock or it's negative if the lock
> is write-locked.
Yes, but ...
Task A:
atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count)
Task B:
munmap()
write lock
free VMA
synchronize_rcu()
VMA is really freed
wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
... vma is freed.
Now, I think this doesn't occur. I'm pretty sure that every caller of
vma_read_unlock() is holding the RCU read lock. But maybe we should
have that assertion?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists