linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 10/16] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a reference count

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: <CAJuCfpEu_rZkC+ktWXE=rA-VenFBZR9VQ-SnVkDbXUqsd3Ys_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 13:44:45 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, 
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com, 
	mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, 
	oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, 
	dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com, 
	lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, 
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, 
	klarasmodin@...il.com, corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/16] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a
 reference count

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 1:38 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > +static inline void vma_refcount_put(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +     int refcnt;
> > +
> > +     if (!__refcount_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_refcnt, &refcnt)) {
> > +             rwsem_release(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> > +
> > +             if (refcnt & VMA_STATE_LOCKED)
> > +                     rcuwait_wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > +     }
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Try to read-lock a vma. The function is allowed to occasionally yield false
> >   * locked result to avoid performance overhead, in which case we fall back to
> > @@ -710,6 +728,8 @@ static inline void vma_lock_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >   */
> >  static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >  {
> > +     int oldcnt;
> > +
> >       /*
> >        * Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result.
> >        * We can use READ_ONCE() for the mm_lock_seq here, and don't need
> > @@ -720,13 +740,20 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >       if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq.sequence))
> >               return false;
> >
> > +
> > +     rwsem_acquire_read(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > +     /* Limit at VMA_STATE_LOCKED - 2 to leave one count for a writer */
> > +     if (unlikely(!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited(&vma->vm_refcnt, &oldcnt,
> > +                                                   VMA_STATE_LOCKED - 2))) {
> > +             rwsem_release(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> >               return false;
> > +     }
> > +     lock_acquired(&vma->vmlock_dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> >
> >       /*
> > +      * Overflow of vm_lock_seq/mm_lock_seq might produce false locked result.
> >        * False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
> > +      * vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_refcnt protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
> >        * modification invalidates all existing locks.
> >        *
> >        * We must use ACQUIRE semantics for the mm_lock_seq so that if we are
> > @@ -734,10 +761,12 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >        * after it has been unlocked.
> >        * This pairs with RELEASE semantics in vma_end_write_all().
> >        */
> > +     if (oldcnt & VMA_STATE_LOCKED ||
> > +         unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == raw_read_seqcount(&vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
> > +             vma_refcount_put(vma);
>
> Suppose we have detach race with a concurrent RCU lookup like:
>
>                                         vma = mas_lookup();
>
>         vma_start_write();
>         mas_detach();
>                                         vma_start_read()
>                                         rwsem_acquire_read()
>                                         inc // success
>         vma_mark_detach();
>         dec_and_test // assumes 1->0
>                      // is actually 2->1
>
>                                         if (vm_lock_seq == vma->vm_mm_mm_lock_seq) // true
>                                           vma_refcount_put
>                                             dec_and_test() // 1->0
>                                               *NO* rwsem_release()
>

Yes, this is possible. I think that's not a problem until we start
reusing the vmas and I deal with this race later in this patchset.
I think what you described here is the same race I mention in the
description of this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241216192419.2970941-14-surenb@google.com/
I introduce vma_ensure_detached() in that patch to handle this case
and ensure that vmas are detached before they are returned into the
slab cache for reuse. Does that make sense?


>
>
> >               return false;
> >       }
> > +
> >       return true;
> >  }