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: <CAJuCfpEKg_h5pw2AxdF1wmFMt4xdOxYqv7U1uVMYcuSCB4kHuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:58:12 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, 
	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 Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 9:44 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:36:42AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> > > You will not. vms_complete_munmap_vmas() will call remove_vma() to
> > > remove PTEs IIRC, and if you do start_write() and detach() before
> > > dropping mmap_lock_write, you should be good.
> >
> > Ok, I think we will have to move mmap_write_downgrade() inside
> > vms_complete_munmap_vmas() to be called after remove_vma().
> > vms_clear_ptes() is using vmas, so we can't move remove_vma() before
> > mmap_write_downgrade().
>
> Why ?!
>
> vms_clear_ptes() and remove_vma() are fine where they are -- there is no
> concurrency left at this point.
>
> Note that by doing vma_start_write() inside vms_complete_munmap_vmas(),
> which is *after* the vmas have been unhooked from the mm, you wait for
> any concurrent user to go away.
>
> And since they're unhooked, there can't be any new users.
>
> So you're the one and only user left, and code is fine the way it is.

Ok, let me make sure I understand this part of your proposal. From
your earlier email:

@@ -1173,6 +1173,11 @@ static void vms_complete_munmap_vmas(struct
vma_munmap_struct *vms,
        struct vm_area_struct *vma;
        struct mm_struct *mm;

+       mas_for_each(mas_detach, vma, ULONG_MAX) {
+               vma_start_write(next);
+               vma_mark_detached(next, true);
+       }
+
        mm = current->mm;
        mm->map_count -= vms->vma_count;
        mm->locked_vm -= vms->locked_vm;

This would mean:

vms_complete_munmap_vmas
           vma_start_write
           vma_mark_detached
           mmap_write_downgrade
           vms_clear_ptes
           remove_vma

And remove_vma will be just freeing the vmas. Is that correct?
I'm a bit confused because the original thinking was that
vma_mark_detached() would drop the last refcnt and if it's 0 we would
free the vma right there. If that's still what we want to do then I
think the above sequence should look like this:

vms_complete_munmap_vmas
           vms_clear_ptes
           remove_vma
               vma_start_write
               vma_mark_detached
           mmap_write_downgrade

because vma_start_write+vma_mark_detached should be done under  mmap_write_lock.
Please let me know which way you want to move forward.


>
>