[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45d59bbe-b8ec-4725-8a4d-c715130036a3@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:47:49 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, 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 4/28/24 02:18, Zi Yan wrote:
> 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"
s/invalid/non-present ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But validation via mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c would require a predictable return
value from pmd_mkinvalid() e.g return old pmd when the entry is not present.
ASSERT(pmd = pmd_mkinvalid(pmd)) - when pmd is not present
Otherwise, wondering how the semantics could be validated in the test.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists