[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230719211631.890995-1-axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:16:31 -0700
From: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
To: Dimitris Siakavaras <jimsiak@...ab.ece.ntua.gr>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Using userfaultfd with KVM's async page fault handling causes
processes to hung waiting for mmap_lock to be released
Thanks for the detailed report Dimitris! I've CCed the MM mailing list and some
folks who work on userfaultfd.
I took a look at this today, but I haven't quite come up with a solution.
I thought it might be as easy as changing userfaultfd_release() to set released
*after* taking the lock. But no such luck, the ordering is what it is to deal
with another subtle case:
WRITE_ONCE(ctx->released, true);
if (!mmget_not_zero(mm))
goto wakeup;
/*
* Flush page faults out of all CPUs. NOTE: all page faults
* must be retried without returning VM_FAULT_SIGBUS if
* userfaultfd_ctx_get() succeeds but vma->vma_userfault_ctx
* changes while handle_userfault released the mmap_lock. So
* it's critical that released is set to true (above), before
* taking the mmap_lock for writing.
*/
mmap_write_lock(mm);
I think perhaps the right thing to do is to have handle_userfault() release
mmap_lock when it returns VM_FAULT_NOPAGE, and to have GUP deal with that
appropriately? But, some investigation is required to be sure that's okay to do
in the other non-GUP ways we can end up in handle_userfault().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists