Message-ID: <4E0ACD41-970E-4EAF-84D7-FFDB5CD49B3E@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:48:27 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: Fix race between __split_huge_pmd_locked() and
 GUP-fast

On 27 Apr 2024, at 16:45, Zi Yan wrote:

> On 27 Apr 2024, at 15:11, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/24 8:14 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2024, at 0:41, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/24 10:07 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>> __split_huge_pmd_locked() can be called for a present THP, devmap or
>>>>> (non-present) migration entry. It calls pmdp_invalidate()
>>>>> unconditionally on the pmdp and only determines if it is present or not
>>>>> based on the returned old pmd. This is a problem for the migration entry
>>>>> case because pmd_mkinvalid(), called by pmdp_invalidate() must only be
>>>>> called for a present pmd.
>>>>>
>>>>> On arm64 at least, pmd_mkinvalid() will mark the pmd such that any
>>>>> future call to pmd_present() will return true. And therefore any
>>>>> lockless pgtable walker could see the migration entry pmd in this state
>>>>> and start interpretting the fields as if it were present, leading to
>>>>> BadThings (TM). GUP-fast appears to be one such lockless pgtable walker.
>>>>> I suspect the same is possible on other architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by only calling pmdp_invalidate() for a present pmd. And for
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this seems like a good design decision (after reading through the
>>>> discussion that you all had in the other threads).
>>>
>>> This will only be good for arm64 and does not prevent other arch developers
>>> to write code breaking arm64, since only arm64's pmd_mkinvalid() can turn
>>> a swap entry to a pmd_present() entry.
>>
>> Well, let's characterize it in a bit more detail, then:
>>
>> 1) This patch will make things better for arm64. That's important!
>>
>> 2) Equally important, this patch does not make anything worse for
>>    other CPU arches.
>>
>> 3) This patch represents a new design constraint on the CPU arch
>>    layer, and thus requires documentation and whatever enforcement
>>    we can provide, in order to keep future code out of trouble.
>>
>> 3.a) See the VM_WARN_ON() hunks below.
>>
>> 3.b) I like the new design constraint, because it is reasonable and
>>      clearly understandable: don't invalidate a non-present page
>>      table entry.
>>
>> I do wonder if there is somewhere else that this should be documented?

In terms of documentation, at least in Documentation/mm/arch_pgtable_helpers.rst,
pmd_mkinvalid() entry needs to add "do not call on an invalid entry as
it breaks arm64".

>
> The issue is pmd_mkinvalid(), since it turns a swap entry into a pmd_present()
> entry on arm64. This patch only adds a warning on pmd_invalidate(), although
> pmd_invalidate() is the only caller of pmd_mkinvalid(). This means any
> future user of pmd_mkinvalid() can cause the same issue on arm64 without any
> warning.
>
> I am not against changing the logic in __split_huge_pmd_lock() to fix arm64,
> but just want to prevent future errors, that might only be possible on arm64.
>
> BTW, in terms of the patch itself, moving "pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd)"
> without moving the big comment above it is not OK, since later no one can
> figure out why that comment is there.
>
>
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> -- 
>> John Hubbard
>> NVIDIA
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> good measure let's add a warning to the generic implementation of
>>>>> pmdp_invalidate(). I've manually reviewed all other
>>>>> pmdp_invalidate[_ad]() call sites and believe all others to be
>>>>> conformant.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a theoretical bug found during code review. I don't have any
>>>>> test case to trigger it in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 84c3fc4e9c56 ("mm: thp: check pmd migration entry in common path")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Applies on top of v6.9-rc5. Passes all the mm selftests on arm64.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    mm/huge_memory.c     | 5 +++--
>>>>>    mm/pgtable-generic.c | 2 ++
>>>>>    2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> index 89f58c7603b2..80939ad00718 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> @@ -2513,12 +2513,12 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>    	 * for this pmd), then we flush the SMP TLB and finally we write the
>>>>>    	 * non-huge version of the pmd entry with pmd_populate.
>>>>>    	 */
>>>>> -	old_pmd = pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
>>>>>
>>>>> -	pmd_migration = is_pmd_migration_entry(old_pmd);
>>>>> +	pmd_migration = is_pmd_migration_entry(*pmd);
>>>>>    	if (unlikely(pmd_migration)) {
>>>>>    		swp_entry_t entry;
>>>>>
>>>>> +		old_pmd = *pmd;
>>>>>    		entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(old_pmd);
>>>>>    		page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
>>>>>    		write = is_writable_migration_entry(entry);
>>>>> @@ -2529,6 +2529,7 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>    		soft_dirty = pmd_swp_soft_dirty(old_pmd);
>>>>>    		uffd_wp = pmd_swp_uffd_wp(old_pmd);
>>>>>    	} else {
>>>>> +		old_pmd = pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
>>>>
>>>> This looks good, except that now I am deeply confused about the pre-existing
>>>> logic. I thought that migration entries were a subset of swap entries,
>>>> but this code seems to be treating is_pmd_migration_entry() as a
>>>> synonym for "is a swap entry". Can you shed any light on this for me?
>>>
>>> It is likely because kernel only split present pmd and migration pmd, but I
>>> could be wrong since the code is changed a lot since splitting migration
>>> pmd was added. We either need to check all call sites or check pmd_present()
>>> instead of is_pmd_migration_entry() and handle all possible situations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    		page = pmd_page(old_pmd);
>>>>>    		folio = page_folio(page);
>>>>>    		if (pmd_dirty(old_pmd)) {
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/pgtable-generic.c b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>>> index 4fcd959dcc4d..74e34ea90656 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ pgtable_t pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmdp)
>>>>>    pmd_t pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>>>>    		     pmd_t *pmdp)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> +	VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(*pmdp));
>>>>>    	pmd_t old = pmdp_establish(vma, address, pmdp, pmd_mkinvalid(*pmdp));
>>>>>    	flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
>>>>>    	return old;
>>>>> @@ -208,6 +209,7 @@ pmd_t pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>>>>    pmd_t pmdp_invalidate_ad(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>>>>    			 pmd_t *pmdp)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> +	VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(*pmdp));
>>>>
>>>> Should these be VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(), instead?
>>>>
>>>> Also, this seems like a good place to put a little comment in, to mark the
>>>> new design constraint. Something like "Only present entries are allowed
>>>> to be invalidated", perhaps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    	return pmdp_invalidate(vma, address, pmdp);
>>>>>    }
>>>>>    #endif
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> -- 
>>>> John Hubbard
>>>> NVIDIA
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Yan, Zi
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi


--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists