| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c0c777d9-8393-47f0-b5c3-1617c3a7b3ba@pankajraghav.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:33:00 +0100
From: Pankaj Raghav <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com,
chandan.babu@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, mcgrof@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] mm: do not split a folio if it has minimum folio
order requirement
On 26/03/2024 17:23, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024, at 12:10, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:06:04PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>>> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
>>>>
>>>> As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
>>>> order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
>>>> has a minimum folio order requirement.
>>>
>>> FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
>>> c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
>>> Feb 26)
>>
>> Yes, I started playing with the patches but I am getting a race condition
>> resulting in a null-ptr-deref for which I don't have a good answer for
>> yet.
>>
>> @zi yan Did you encounter any issue like this when you were testing?
>>
>> I did the following change (just a prototype) instead of this patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index 9859aa4f7553..63ee7b6ed03d 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -3041,6 +3041,10 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>> {
>> struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
>> + unsigned int mapping_min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>
> I am not sure if this is right. Since folio can be anonymous and folio->mapping
> does not point to struct address_space.
>
>> +
>> + if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
Hmm, but I update the new_order only if it is not anonymous. Do you think it is still
wrong?
>> + new_order = max_t(unsigned int, mapping_min_order, new_order);
>> /* reset xarray order to new order after split */
>> XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &folio->mapping->i_pages, folio->index, new_order);
>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>> @@ -3117,6 +3121,8 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + // XXX: Remove it later
>> + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO((new_order < mapping_min_order), folio);
>> gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) &
>> GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
>>
>> I am getting a random null-ptr deref when I run generic/176 multiple
>> times with different blksizes. I still don't have a minimal reproducer
>> for this issue. Race condition during writeback:
>>
>> filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0:
>> arch_atomic_read at arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:23
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_read at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:457
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_fetch_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2426
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2456
>> (inlined by) atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h:1518
>> (inlined by) page_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:238
>> (inlined by) folio_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:247
>> (inlined by) folio_ref_try_add_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:280
>> (inlined by) folio_try_get_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:313
>> (inlined by) find_get_entry at mm/filemap.c:1984
>> (inlined by) filemap_get_folios_tag at mm/filemap.c:2222
>>
>>
>>
>> [ 537.863105] ==================================================================
>> [ 537.863968] BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.864581] Write of size 4 at addr 0000000000000036 by task kworker/u32:5/366
>> [ 537.865123]
>> [ 537.865293] CPU: 6 PID: 366 Comm: kworker/u32:5 Not tainted 6.8.0-11739-g7d0c6e7b5a7d-dirty #795
>> [ 537.867201] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
>> [ 537.868444] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-254:32)
>> [ 537.869055] Call Trace:
>> [ 537.869341] <TASK>
>> [ 537.869569] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70
>> [ 537.869938] kasan_report+0xbd/0xf0
>> [ 537.870293] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.870767] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.871578] kasan_check_range+0x101/0x1b0
>> [ 537.871893] filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.872269] ? __pfx_filemap_get_folios_tag+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.872857] ? __pfx___submit_bio+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.873326] ? mlock_drain_local+0x234/0x3f0
>> [ 537.873938] writeback_iter+0x59a/0xe00
>> [ 537.874477] ? __pfx_iomap_do_writepage+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.874969] write_cache_pages+0x7f/0x100
>> [ 537.875396] ? __pfx_write_cache_pages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.875892] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12d/0x270
>> [ 537.876345] ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.876804] iomap_writepages+0x88/0xf0
>> [ 537.877186] xfs_vm_writepages+0x120/0x190
>> [ 537.877705] ? __pfx_xfs_vm_writepages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.878161] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
>> [ 537.878521] ? __wb_calc_thresh+0xe5/0x3b0
>> [ 537.878892] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.879308] do_writepages+0x170/0x7a0
>> [ 537.879676] ? __pfx_do_writepages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.880182] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
>> [ 537.880689] ? reacquire_held_locks+0x1f1/0x4a0
>> [ 537.881193] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
>> [ 537.881665] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
>> [ 537.882104] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
>> [ 537.883344] ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode+0x3b8/0x710
>> [ 537.883853] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.884229] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.884604] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.884952] __writeback_single_inode+0xd4/0xa60
>> [ 537.885369] writeback_sb_inodes+0x4cf/0xe40
>> [ 537.885760] ? __pfx_writeback_sb_inodes+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.886208] ? __pfx_move_expired_inodes+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.886640] __writeback_inodes_wb+0xb4/0x200
>> [ 537.887037] wb_writeback+0x55b/0x7c0
>> [ 537.887372] ? __pfx_wb_writeback+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.887750] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.888094] ? __pfx_register_lock_class+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.888521] wb_workfn+0x648/0xbb0
>> [ 537.888835] ? __pfx_wb_workfn+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.889192] ? lock_acquire+0x128/0x2f0
>> [ 537.889539] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.889890] process_one_work+0x7ff/0x1710
>> [ 537.890272] ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.890685] ? assign_work+0x16c/0x240
>> [ 537.891026] worker_thread+0x6e8/0x12b0
>> [ 537.891381] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.891768] kthread+0x2ad/0x380
>> [ 537.892064] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.892403] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70
>> [ 537.892728] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.893068] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>> [ 537.893434] </TASK>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists