[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <hxs6snfghhcgdvjse6vrvxzpxio4oixw7hezkryhsishap6ngm@tzsoubsx37sk>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:12:06 -0400
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] maple_tree: reset mas->index and mas->last on
write retries
* Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com> [240812 15:05]:
> The following scenario can result in a race condition:
>
> Consider a node with the following indices and values
>
> a<------->b<----------->c<--------->d
> 0xA NULL 0xB
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> --------- ---------
> mas_set_range(a,b)
> mas_erase()
> -> range is expanded (a,c) because of null expansion
>
> mas_nomem()
> mas_unlock()
> mas_store_range(b,c,0xC)
>
> The node now looks like:
>
> a<------->b<----------->c<--------->d
> 0xA 0xC 0xB
>
> mas_lock()
> mas_erase() <------ range of erase is still (a,c)
>
> The node is now NULL from (a,c) but the write from CPU 2 should have been
> retained and range (b,c) should still have 0xC as its value. We can fix
> this by re-intializing to the original index and last. This does not need
> a cc: Stable as there are no users of the maple tree which use internal
> locking and this condition is only possible with internal locking.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - re-initialize index and last in the mas_nomem() if statement so
> fast path is not effected in mas_erase().
>
> - use __mas_set_range() rather than set mas->index and mas->last
> directly.
>
> lib/maple_tree.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
> index aa3a5df15b8e..b547ff211ac7 100644
> --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
> +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
> @@ -5451,14 +5451,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mas_store);
> */
> int mas_store_gfp(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry, gfp_t gfp)
> {
> + unsigned long index = mas->index;
> + unsigned long last = mas->last;
> MA_WR_STATE(wr_mas, mas, entry);
>
> mas_wr_store_setup(&wr_mas);
> trace_ma_write(__func__, mas, 0, entry);
> retry:
> mas_wr_store_entry(&wr_mas);
> - if (unlikely(mas_nomem(mas, gfp)))
> + if (unlikely(mas_nomem(mas, gfp))) {
> + if (!entry)
> + __mas_set_range(mas, index, last);
> goto retry;
> + }
>
> if (unlikely(mas_is_err(mas)))
> return xa_err(mas->node);
> @@ -6245,23 +6250,26 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mas_find_range_rev);
> void *mas_erase(struct ma_state *mas)
> {
> void *entry;
> + unsigned long index = mas->index;
> MA_WR_STATE(wr_mas, mas, NULL);
>
> if (!mas_is_active(mas) || !mas_is_start(mas))
> mas->status = ma_start;
>
> - /* Retry unnecessary when holding the write lock. */
> +write_retry:
> entry = mas_state_walk(mas);
> if (!entry)
> return NULL;
>
> -write_retry:
> /* Must reset to ensure spanning writes of last slot are detected */
> mas_reset(mas);
> mas_wr_store_setup(&wr_mas);
> mas_wr_store_entry(&wr_mas);
> - if (mas_nomem(mas, GFP_KERNEL))
> + if (mas_nomem(mas, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + /* in case the range of entry changed when unlocked */
> + mas->index = mas->last = index;
> goto write_retry;
> + }
>
> return entry;
> }
> --
> 2.46.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists