| 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: <CAJuCfpH8-LrNuK8xWHU9kGM7QjYqWBdjy1TKe4DuuPd1s+g11Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:21:39 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lokeshgidra@...gle.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
21cnbao@...il.com, v-songbaohua@...o.com, david@...hat.com,
willy@...radead.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
hughd@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: do not block on locking a large folio
with raised refcount
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:12 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1:32 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:46:13PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > Lokesh recently raised an issue about UFFDIO_MOVE getting into a deadlock
> > > state when it goes into split_folio() with raised folio refcount.
> > > split_folio() expects the reference count to be exactly
> > > mapcount + num_pages_in_folio + 1 (see can_split_folio()) and fails with
> > > EAGAIN otherwise. If multiple processes are trying to move the same
> > > large folio, they raise the refcount (all tasks succeed in that) then
> > > one of them succeeds in locking the folio, while others will block in
> > > folio_lock() while keeping the refcount raised. The winner of this
> > > race will proceed with calling split_folio() and will fail returning
> > > EAGAIN to the caller and unlocking the folio. The next competing process
> > > will get the folio locked and will go through the same flow. In the
> > > meantime the original winner will be retried and will block in
> > > folio_lock(), getting into the queue of waiting processes only to repeat
> > > the same path. All this results in a livelock.
> > > An easy fix would be to avoid waiting for the folio lock while holding
> > > folio refcount, similar to madvise_free_huge_pmd() where folio lock is
> > > acquired before raising the folio refcount.
> > > Modify move_pages_pte() to try locking the folio first and if that fails
> > > and the folio is large then return EAGAIN without touching the folio
> > > refcount. If the folio is single-page then split_folio() is not called,
> > > so we don't have this issue.
> > > Lokesh has a reproducer [1] and I verified that this change fixes the
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/lokeshgidra/uffd_move_ioctl_deadlock
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> >
> > One question irrelevant of this change below..
> >
> > > ---
> > > mm/userfaultfd.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > index 867898c4e30b..f17f8290c523 100644
> > > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -1236,6 +1236,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> > > */
> > > if (!src_folio) {
> > > struct folio *folio;
> > > + bool locked;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Pin the page while holding the lock to be sure the
> > > @@ -1255,12 +1256,26 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + locked = folio_trylock(folio);
> > > + /*
> > > + * We avoid waiting for folio lock with a raised refcount
> > > + * for large folios because extra refcounts will result in
> > > + * split_folio() failing later and retrying. If multiple
> > > + * tasks are trying to move a large folio we can end
> > > + * livelocking.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!locked && folio_test_large(folio)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(src_ptl);
> > > + err = -EAGAIN;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > folio_get(folio);
> > > src_folio = folio;
> > > src_folio_pte = orig_src_pte;
> > > spin_unlock(src_ptl);
> > >
> > > - if (!folio_trylock(src_folio)) {
> > > + if (!locked) {
> > > pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte);
> > > pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte);
> >
> > .. just notice this. Are these problematic? I mean, orig_*_pte are stack
> > variables, afaict. I'd expect these things blow on HIGHPTE..
>
> Ugh! Yes, I think so. From a quick look, move_pages_pte() is the only
> place we have this issue and I don't see a reason for copying src_pte
> and dst_pte values. I'll spend some more time trying to understand if
> we really need these local copies.
Ah, we copy the values to later check if PTEs changed from under us.
But I see no reason we need to use orig_{src|dst}_pte instead of
{src|dst}_pte when doing pte_unmap(). I think we can safely replace
them with the original ones. WDYT?
>
> >
> > > src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
> > >
> > > base-commit: 801d47bd96ce22acd43809bc09e004679f707c39
> > > --
> > > 2.48.1.658.g4767266eb4-goog
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Xu
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists