| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHmS7y-gb7YTn4TfPz-YHau3po7TU3tN+8q+1JxXm-rtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:47:49 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
zhengtangquan@...o.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Geoffray <ngeoffray@...gle.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, ZhangPeng <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Fix kernel BUG when userfaultfd_move encounters swapcache
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 2:59 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 12:04:40PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:15 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:37:50AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:27 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:25 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > userfaultfd_move() checks whether the PTE entry is present or a
> > > > > > swap entry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - If the PTE entry is present, move_present_pte() handles folio
> > > > > > migration by setting:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > src_folio->index = linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - If the PTE entry is a swap entry, move_swap_pte() simply copies
> > > > > > the PTE to the new dst_addr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This approach is incorrect because even if the PTE is a swap
> > > > > > entry, it can still reference a folio that remains in the swap
> > > > > > cache.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If do_swap_page() is triggered, it may locate the folio in the
> > > > > > swap cache. However, during add_rmap operations, a kernel panic
> > > > > > can occur due to:
> > > > > > page_pgoff(folio, page) != linear_page_index(vma, address)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the report and reproducer!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $./a.out > /dev/null
> > > > > > [ 13.336953] page: refcount:6 mapcount:1 mapping:00000000f43db19c index:0xffffaf150 pfn:0x4667c
> > > > > > [ 13.337520] head: order:2 mapcount:1 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:1 pincount:0
> > > > > > [ 13.337716] memcg:ffff00000405f000
> > > > > > [ 13.337849] anon flags: 0x3fffc0000020459(locked|uptodate|dirty|owner_priv_1|head|swapbacked|node=0|zone=0|lastcpupid=0xffff)
> > > > > > [ 13.338630] raw: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff80008507b538 ffff000006260361
> > > > > > [ 13.338831] raw: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 0000000600000000 ffff00000405f000
> > > > > > [ 13.339031] head: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff80008507b538 ffff000006260361
> > > > > > [ 13.339204] head: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 0000000600000000 ffff00000405f000
> > > > > > [ 13.339375] head: 03fffc0000000202 fffffdffc0199f01 ffffffff00000000 0000000000000001
> > > > > > [ 13.339546] head: 0000000000000004 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
> > > > > > [ 13.339736] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_pgoff(folio, page) != linear_page_index(vma, address))
> > > > > > [ 13.340190] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > > > [ 13.340316] kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:1380!
> > > > > > [ 13.340683] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> > > > > > [ 13.340969] Modules linked in:
> > > > > > [ 13.341257] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 107 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6.14.0-rc3-gcf42737e247a-dirty #299
> > > > > > [ 13.341470] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > > > > > [ 13.341671] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> > > > > > [ 13.341815] pc : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0
> > > > > > [ 13.341920] lr : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0
> > > > > > [ 13.342018] sp : ffff80008752bb20
> > > > > > [ 13.342093] x29: ffff80008752bb20 x28: fffffdffc0199f00 x27: 0000000000000001
> > > > > > [ 13.342404] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: 0000000000000001
> > > > > > [ 13.342575] x23: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x22: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x21: fffffdffc0199f00
> > > > > > [ 13.342731] x20: fffffdffc0199f00 x19: ffff000006210700 x18: 00000000ffffffff
> > > > > > [ 13.342881] x17: 6c203d2120296567 x16: 6170202c6f696c6f x15: 662866666f67705f
> > > > > > [ 13.343033] x14: 6567617028454741 x13: 2929737365726464 x12: ffff800083728ab0
> > > > > > [ 13.343183] x11: ffff800082996bf8 x10: 0000000000000fd7 x9 : ffff80008011bc40
> > > > > > [ 13.343351] x8 : 0000000000017fe8 x7 : 00000000fffff000 x6 : ffff8000829eebf8
> > > > > > [ 13.343498] x5 : c0000000fffff000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000
> > > > > > [ 13.343645] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff0000062db980 x0 : 000000000000005f
> > > > > > [ 13.343876] Call trace:
> > > > > > [ 13.344045] __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 (P)
> > > > > > [ 13.344234] folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x22c/0x320
> > > > > > [ 13.344333] do_swap_page+0x1060/0x1400
> > > > > > [ 13.344417] __handle_mm_fault+0x61c/0xbc8
> > > > > > [ 13.344504] handle_mm_fault+0xd8/0x2e8
> > > > > > [ 13.344586] do_page_fault+0x20c/0x770
> > > > > > [ 13.344673] do_translation_fault+0xb4/0xf0
> > > > > > [ 13.344759] do_mem_abort+0x48/0xa0
> > > > > > [ 13.344842] el0_da+0x58/0x130
> > > > > > [ 13.344914] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xc4/0x138
> > > > > > [ 13.345002] el0t_64_sync+0x1ac/0x1b0
> > > > > > [ 13.345208] Code: aa1503e0 f000f801 910f6021 97ff5779 (d4210000)
> > > > > > [ 13.345504] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > > > > > [ 13.345715] note: a.out[107] exited with irqs disabled
> > > > > > [ 13.345954] note: a.out[107] exited with preempt_count 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fully fixing it would be quite complex, requiring similar handling
> > > > > > of folios as done in move_present_pte.
> > > > >
> > > > > How complex would that be? Is it a matter of adding
> > > > > folio_maybe_dma_pinned() checks, doing folio_move_anon_rmap() and
> > > > > folio->index = linear_page_index like in move_present_pte() or
> > > > > something more?
> > > >
> > > > My main concern is still with large folios that require a split_folio()
> > > > during move_pages(), as the entire folio shares the same index and
> > > > anon_vma. However, userfaultfd_move() moves pages individually,
> > > > making a split necessary.
> > > >
> > > > However, in split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), there is a:
> > > >
> > > > if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
> > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > >
> > > > This is likely true for swapcache, right? However, even for move_present_pte(),
> > > > it simply returns -EBUSY:
> > > >
> > > > move_pages_pte()
> > > > {
> > > > /* at this point we have src_folio locked */
> > > > if (folio_test_large(src_folio)) {
> > > > /* split_folio() can block */
> > > > pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte);
> > > > pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte);
> > > > src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
> > > > err = split_folio(src_folio);
> > > > if (err)
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > /* have to reacquire the folio after it got split */
> > > > folio_unlock(src_folio);
> > > > folio_put(src_folio);
> > > > src_folio = NULL;
> > > > goto retry;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Do we need a folio_wait_writeback() before calling split_folio()?
> > >
> > > Maybe no need in the first version to fix the immediate bug?
> > >
> > > It's also not always the case to hit writeback here. IIUC, writeback only
> > > happens for a short window when the folio was just added into swapcache.
> > > MOVE can happen much later after that anytime before a swapin. My
> > > understanding is that's also what Matthew wanted to point out. It may be
> > > better justified of that in a separate change with some performance
> > > measurements.
> >
> > The bug we’re discussing occurs precisely within the short window you
> > mentioned.
> >
> > 1. add_to_swap: The folio is added to swapcache.
> > 2. try_to_unmap: PTEs are converted to swap entries.
> > 3. pageout
> > 4. Swapcache is cleared.
>
> Hmm, I see. I was expecting step 4 to be "writeback is cleared".. or at
> least that should be step 3.5, as IIUC "writeback" needs to be cleared
> before "swapcache" bit being cleared.
>
> >
> > The issue happens between steps 2 and 4, where the PTE is not present, but
> > the folio is still in swapcache - the current code does move_swap_pte() but does
> > not fixup folio->index within swapcache.
>
> One thing I'm still not clear here is why it's a race condition, rather
> than more severe than that. I mean, folio->index is definitely wrong, then
> as long as the page still in swapcache, we should be able to move the swp
> entry over to dest addr of UFFDIO_MOVE, read on dest addr, then it'll see
> the page in swapcache with the wrong folio->index already and trigger.
>
> I wrote a quick test like that, it actually won't trigger..
>
> I had a closer look in the code, I think it's because do_swap_page() has
> the logic to detect folio->index matching first, and allocate a new folio
> if it doesn't match in ksm_might_need_to_copy(). IIUC that was for
> ksm.. but it looks like it's functioning too here.
>
> ksm_might_need_to_copy:
> if (folio_test_ksm(folio)) {
> if (folio_stable_node(folio) &&
> !(ksm_run & KSM_RUN_UNMERGE))
> return folio; /* no need to copy it */
> } else if (!anon_vma) {
> return folio; /* no need to copy it */
> } else if (folio->index == linear_page_index(vma, addr) && <---------- [1]
> anon_vma->root == vma->anon_vma->root) {
> return folio; /* still no need to copy it */
> }
> ...
>
> new_folio = vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0, vma, addr); <---- [2]
> ...
>
> So I believe what I hit is at [1] it sees index doesn't match, then it
> decided to allocate a new folio. In this case, it won't hit your BUG
> because it'll be "folio != swapcache" later, so it'll setup the
> folio->index for the new one, rather than the sanity check.
>
> Do you know how your case got triggered, being able to bypass the above [1]
> which should check folio->index already?
To understand the change I tried applying the proposed patch to both
mm-unstable and Linus' ToT and got conflicts for both trees. Barry,
which baseline are you using?
>
> >
> > My point is that if we want a proper fix for mTHP, we'd better handle writeback.
> > Otherwise, this isn’t much different from directly returning -EBUSY as proposed
> > in this RFC.
> >
> > For small folios, there’s no split_folio issue, making it relatively
> > simpler. Lokesh
> > mentioned plans to madvise NOHUGEPAGE in ART, so fixing small folios is likely
> > the first priority.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists