linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults

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: <CAJuCfpG2Sc8Og+9EfeWsZ-xX+bUuEokUJe8Bvg5+dAqHtC-DfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:29:52 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com, josef@...icpanda.com,
        jack@...e.cz, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        michel@...pinasse.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, jglisse@...gle.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, minchan@...gle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com,
        apopple@...dia.com, peterx@...hat.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:16 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 06:24:15AM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Ok, I think I found the issue.  wp_page_shared() ->
> > fault_dirty_shared_page() can drop mmap_lock (see the comment saying
> > "Drop the mmap_lock before waiting on IO, if we can...", therefore we
> > have to ensure we are not doing this under per-VMA lock.
>
> ... or we could change maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io() the same way
> that we changed folio_lock_or_retry():
>
> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static inline struct file *maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>         if (fault_flag_allow_retry_first(flags) &&
>             !(flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)) {
>                 fpin = get_file(vmf->vma->vm_file);
> -               mmap_read_unlock(vmf->vma->vm_mm);
> +               release_fault_lock(vmf);
>         }
>         return fpin;
>  }
>
> What do you think?

This is very tempting... Let me try that and see if anything explodes,
but yes, this would be ideal.


>
> > I think what happens is that this path is racing with another page
> > fault which took mmap_lock for read. fault_dirty_shared_page()
> > releases this lock which was taken by another page faulting thread and
> > that thread generates an assertion when it finds out the lock it just
> > took got released from under it.
>
> I'm confused that our debugging didn't catch this earlier.  lockdep
> should always catch this.

Maybe this condition is rare enough?