linux-kernel - Re: Race condition observed between page migration and page fault handling on arm64 machines

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: <6486a2b1-45ef-44b6-bd84-d402fc121373@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:26:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 willy@...radead.org
Cc: ryan.roberts@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
 cl@...two.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com, apopple@...dia.com,
 osalvador@...e.de, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, will@...nel.org, baohua@...nel.org,
 ioworker0@...il.com, gshan@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
 kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hughd@...gle.com, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, peterx@...hat.com, broonie@...nel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Race condition observed between page migration and page fault
 handling on arm64 machines

On 01.08.24 15:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> To dampen the tradeoff, we could do this in shmem_fault() instead? But
>>>> then, this would mean that we do this in all
>>>>
>>>> kinds of vma->vm_ops->fault, only when we discover another reference
>>>> count race condition :) Doing this in do_fault()
>>>>
>>>> should solve this once and for all. In fact, do_pte_missing() may call
>>>> do_anonymous_page() or do_fault(), and I just
>>>>
>>>> noticed that the former already checks this using vmf_pte_changed().
>>>
>>> What I am still missing is why this is (a) arm64 only; and (b) if this
>>> is something we should really worry about. There are other reasons
>>> (e.g., speculative references) why migration could temporarily fail,
>>> does it happen that often that it is really something we have to worry
>>> about?
>>
>>
>> (a) See discussion at [1]; I guess it passes on x86, which is quite
>> strange since the race is clearly arch-independent.
> 
> Yes, I think this is what we have to understand. Is the race simply less
> likely to trigger on x86?
> 
> I would assume that it would trigger on any arch.
> 
> I just ran it on a x86 VM with 2 NUMA nodes and it also seems to work here.
> 
> Is this maybe related to deferred flushing? Such that the other CPU will
> by accident just observe the !pte_none a little less likely?
> 
> But arm64 also usually defers flushes, right? At least unless
> ARM64_WORKAROUND_REPEAT_TLBI is around. With that we never do deferred
> flushes.

Bingo!

diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index e51ed44f8b53..ce94b810586b 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -718,10 +718,7 @@ static void set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(struct 
mm_struct *mm, pte_t pteval,
   */
  static bool should_defer_flush(struct mm_struct *mm, enum ttu_flags flags)
  {
-       if (!(flags & TTU_BATCH_FLUSH))
-               return false;
-
-       return arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(mm);
+       return false;
  }


On x86:

# ./migration
TAP version 13
1..1
# Starting 1 tests from 1 test cases.
#  RUN           migration.shared_anon ...
Didn't migrate 1 pages
# migration.c:170:shared_anon:Expected migrate(ptr, self->n1, self->n2) 
(-2) == 0 (0)
# shared_anon: Test terminated by assertion
#          FAIL  migration.shared_anon
not ok 1 migration.shared_anon


It fails all of the time!

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb