Message-ID: <dafe3a34-3223-48ab-a9ae-cd20436cbda5@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:28:29 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
 Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] s390/pci: Fix s390_mmio_read/write syscall page
 fault handling

On 12.06.24 00:21, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:37:20 +0200
> Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 2024-06-11 at 17:10 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> which checks mmap_assert_write_locked().
>>>>>
>>>>> Setting VMA flags would be racy with the mmap lock in read mode.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> remap_pfn_range() documents: "this is only safe if the mm semaphore is
>>>>> held when called." which doesn't spell out if it needs to be held in
>>>>> write mode (which I think it does) :)
>>>>
>>>> Logically this makes sense to me. At the same time it looks like
>>>> fixup_user_fault() expects the caller to only hold mmap_read_lock() as
>>>> I do here. In there it even retakes mmap_read_lock(). But then wouldn't
>>>> any fault handling by its nature need to hold the write lock?
>>>
>>> Well, if you're calling remap_pfn_range() right now the expectation is
>>> that we hold it in write mode. :)
>>>
>>> Staring at some random users, they all call it from mmap(), where you
>>> hold the mmap lock in write mode.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder why we are not seeing that splat with vfio all of the time?
>>>
>>> That mmap lock check was added "recently". In 1c71222e5f23 we started
>>> using vm_flags_set(). That (including the mmap_assert_write_locked())
>>> check was added via bc292ab00f6c almost 1.5 years ago.
>>>
>>> Maybe vfio is a bit special and was never really run with lockdep?
>>>    
>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My best guess is: if you are using remap_pfn_range() from a fault
>>>>> handler (not during mmap time) you are doing something wrong, that's why
>>>>> you get that report.
>>>>
>>>> @Alex: I guess so far the vfio_pci_mmap_fault() handler is only ever
>>>> triggered by "normal"/"actual" page faults where this isn't a problem?
>>>> Or could it be a problem there too?
>>>>    
>>>
>>> I think we should see it there as well, unless I am missing something.
>>
>> Well good news for me, bad news for everyone else. I just reproduced
>> the same problem on my x86_64 workstation. I "ported over" (hacked it
>> until it compiles) an x86 version of my trivial vfio-pci user-space
>> test code that mmaps() the BAR 0 of an NVMe and MMIO reads the NVMe
>> version field at offset 8. On my x86_64 box this leads to the following
>> splat (still on v6.10-rc1).
> 
> There's already a fix for this queued[1] in my for-linus branch for
> v6.10.  The problem has indeed existed with lockdep for some time but
> only with the recent lockdep changes to generate a warning regardless
> of debug kernel settings has it gone from just sketchy to having a fire
> under it.  There's still an outstanding question of whether we
> can/should insert as many pfns as we can during the fault[2] to reduce
> the new overhead and hopefully at some point we'll have an even cleaner
> option to use huge_fault for pfnmaps, but currently
> vmf_insert_pfn_{pmd,pud} don't work with those pfnmaps.
> 
> So hopefully this problem disappears on current linux-next, but let me
> know if there's still an issue.  Thanks,

I see us now using vmf_insert_pfn(), which should be the right thing to 
do. So I suspect this problem should be disappearing.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists