| 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: <20250515022219.GA1851@system.software.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:22:19 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>
To: Gavin Guo <gavinguo@...lia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
osalvador@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
kernel_team@...ynix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: fix a deadlock with pagecache_folio and
hugetlb_fault_mutex_table
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 04:10:12PM +0800, Gavin Guo wrote:
> Hi Byungchul,
>
> On 5/14/25 14:47, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 05:34:48PM +0800, Gavin Guo wrote:
> > > The patch fixes a deadlock which can be triggered by an internal
> > > syzkaller [1] reproducer and captured by bpftrace script [2] and its log
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to reproduce using the test program [1]. But not yet
> > produced. I see a lot of segfaults while running [1]. I guess
> > something goes wrong. Is there any prerequisite condition to reproduce
> > it? Lemme know if any. Or can you try DEPT15 with your config and
> > environment by the following steps:
> >
> > 1. Apply the patchset on v6.15-rc6.
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250513100730.12664-1-byungchul@sk.com
> > 2. Turn on CONFIG_DEPT.
> > 3. Run test program reproducing the deadlock.
> > 4. Check dmesg to see if dept reported the dependency.
> >
> > Byungchul
>
> I have enabled the patchset and successfully reproduced the bug. It
> seems that there is no warning or error log related to the lock. Did I
> miss anything? This is the console log:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dxWNiO71qE-H-e5NMPqj7W-aW5CkGSSF/view?usp=sharing
Hi,
No, you don't miss anything.
> >
> > > [3] in this scenario:
> > >
> > > Process 1 Process 2
> > > --- ---
> > > hugetlb_fault
> > > mutex_lock(B) // take B
> > > filemap_lock_hugetlb_folio
> > > filemap_lock_folio
> > > __filemap_get_folio
> > > folio_lock(A) // take A
> > > hugetlb_wp
> > > mutex_unlock(B) // release B
> > > ... hugetlb_fault
> > > ... mutex_lock(B) // take B
> > > filemap_lock_hugetlb_folio
> > > filemap_lock_folio
> > > __filemap_get_folio
> > > folio_lock(A) // blocked
^
dept adds B->A dependency.
> > > unmap_ref_private
> > > ...
> > > mutex_lock(B) // retake and blocked
Since folio_unlock(A) might be called from others than Process 1 and
resolve the hang, dept delays the decision adding A->B dependency until
dept actually sees folio_unlock(A).
I guess the folio_unlock(A) has never been hit with B held, before the
hang. dept would've detected the deadlock in advance if folio_unlock(A)
had been hit with B held at least once while testing.
Or to detect that in advance, we can tell dept that the pair of
folio_lock() and folio_unlock() happens in the same context like, which
looks a bit ugly tho:
folio_lock(A);
+ /*
+ * Means the interesting event, folio_unlock(), will appear within
+ * this context.
+ */
+ sdt_ecxt_enter(&pg_locked_map);
...
+ sdt_ecxt_exit(&pg_locked_map);
folio_unlock(A);
Feel free to lemme know if you have any idea for better work.
Byungchul
> > >
> > > This is a ABBA deadlock involving two locks:
> > > - Lock A: pagecache_folio lock
> > > - Lock B: hugetlb_fault_mutex_table lock
> > >
> > > The deadlock occurs between two processes as follows:
> > > 1. The first process (let’s call it Process 1) is handling a
> > > copy-on-write (COW) operation on a hugepage via hugetlb_wp. Due to
> > > insufficient reserved hugetlb pages, Process 1, owner of the reserved
> > > hugetlb page, attempts to unmap a hugepage owned by another process
> > > (non-owner) to satisfy the reservation. Before unmapping, Process 1
> > > acquires lock B (hugetlb_fault_mutex_table lock) and then lock A
> > > (pagecache_folio lock). To proceed with the unmap, it releases Lock B
> > > but retains Lock A. After the unmap, Process 1 tries to reacquire Lock
> > > B. However, at this point, Lock B has already been acquired by another
> > > process.
> > >
> > > 2. The second process (Process 2) enters the hugetlb_fault handler
> > > during the unmap operation. It successfully acquires Lock B
> > > (hugetlb_fault_mutex_table lock) that was just released by Process 1,
> > > but then attempts to acquire Lock A (pagecache_folio lock), which is
> > > still held by Process 1.
> > >
> > > As a result, Process 1 (holding Lock A) is blocked waiting for Lock B
> > > (held by Process 2), while Process 2 (holding Lock B) is blocked waiting
> > > for Lock A (held by Process 1), constructing a ABBA deadlock scenario.
> > >
> > > The solution here is to unlock the pagecache_folio and provide the
> > > pagecache_folio_unlocked variable to the caller to have the visibility
> > > over the pagecache_folio status for subsequent handling.
> > >
> > > The error message:
> > > INFO: task repro_20250402_:13229 blocked for more than 64 seconds.
> > > Not tainted 6.15.0-rc3+ #24
> > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > task:repro_20250402_ state:D stack:25856 pid:13229 tgid:13228 ppid:3513 task_flags:0x400040 flags:0x00004006
> > > Call Trace:
> > > <TASK>
> > > __schedule+0x1755/0x4f50
> > > schedule+0x158/0x330
> > > schedule_preempt_disabled+0x15/0x30
> > > __mutex_lock+0x75f/0xeb0
> > > hugetlb_wp+0xf88/0x3440
> > > hugetlb_fault+0x14c8/0x2c30
> > > trace_clock_x86_tsc+0x20/0x20
> > > do_user_addr_fault+0x61d/0x1490
> > > exc_page_fault+0x64/0x100
> > > asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
> > > RIP: 0010:__put_user_4+0xd/0x20
> > > copy_process+0x1f4a/0x3d60
> > > kernel_clone+0x210/0x8f0
> > > __x64_sys_clone+0x18d/0x1f0
> > > do_syscall_64+0x6a/0x120
> > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
> > > RIP: 0033:0x41b26d
> > > </TASK>
> > > INFO: task repro_20250402_:13229 is blocked on a mutex likely owned by task repro_20250402_:13250.
> > > task:repro_20250402_ state:D stack:28288 pid:13250 tgid:13228 ppid:3513 task_flags:0x400040 flags:0x00000006
> > > Call Trace:
> > > <TASK>
> > > __schedule+0x1755/0x4f50
> > > schedule+0x158/0x330
> > > io_schedule+0x92/0x110
> > > folio_wait_bit_common+0x69a/0xba0
> > > __filemap_get_folio+0x154/0xb70
> > > hugetlb_fault+0xa50/0x2c30
> > > trace_clock_x86_tsc+0x20/0x20
> > > do_user_addr_fault+0xace/0x1490
> > > exc_page_fault+0x64/0x100
> > > asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
> > > RIP: 0033:0x402619
> > > </TASK>
> > > INFO: task repro_20250402_:13250 blocked for more than 65 seconds.
> > > Not tainted 6.15.0-rc3+ #24
> > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > task:repro_20250402_ state:D stack:28288 pid:13250 tgid:13228 ppid:3513 task_flags:0x400040 flags:0x00000006
> > > Call Trace:
> > > <TASK>
> > > __schedule+0x1755/0x4f50
> > > schedule+0x158/0x330
> > > io_schedule+0x92/0x110
> > > folio_wait_bit_common+0x69a/0xba0
> > > __filemap_get_folio+0x154/0xb70
> > > hugetlb_fault+0xa50/0x2c30
> > > trace_clock_x86_tsc+0x20/0x20
> > > do_user_addr_fault+0xace/0x1490
> > > exc_page_fault+0x64/0x100
> > > asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
> > > RIP: 0033:0x402619
> > > </TASK>
> > >
> > > Showing all locks held in the system:
> > > 1 lock held by khungtaskd/35:
> > > #0: ffffffff879a7440 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: debug_show_all_locks+0x30/0x180
> > > 2 locks held by repro_20250402_/13229:
> > > #0: ffff888017d801e0 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: lock_mm_and_find_vma+0x37/0x300
> > > #1: ffff888000fec848 (&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[i]){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: hugetlb_wp+0xf88/0x3440
> > > 3 locks held by repro_20250402_/13250:
> > > #0: ffff8880177f3d08 (vm_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: do_user_addr_fault+0x41b/0x1490
> > > #1: ffff888000fec848 (&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[i]){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: hugetlb_fault+0x3b8/0x2c30
> > > #2: ffff8880129500e8 (&resv_map->rw_sema){++++}-{4:4}, at: hugetlb_fault+0x494/0x2c30
> > >
> > > Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DVRnIW-vSayU5J1re9Ct_br3jJQU6Vpb/view?usp=drive_link [1]
> > > Link: https://github.com/bboymimi/bpftracer/blob/master/scripts/hugetlb_lock_debug.bt [2]
> > > Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bWq2-8o-BJAuhoHWX7zAhI6ggfhVzQUI/view?usp=sharing [3]
> > > Fixes: 40549ba8f8e0 ("hugetlb: use new vma_lock for pmd sharing synchronization")
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > > Cc: Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>
> > > Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Guo <gavinguo@...lia.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/hugetlb.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index e3e6ac991b9c..ad54a74aa563 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -6115,7 +6115,8 @@ static void unmap_ref_private(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > * Keep the pte_same checks anyway to make transition from the mutex easier.
> > > */
> > > static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct folio *pagecache_folio,
> > > - struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > + struct vm_fault *vmf,
> > > + bool *pagecache_folio_unlocked)
> > > {
> > > struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > > @@ -6212,6 +6213,22 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct folio *pagecache_folio,
> > > u32 hash;
> > > folio_put(old_folio);
> > > + /*
> > > + * The pagecache_folio needs to be unlocked to avoid
> > > + * deadlock and we won't re-lock it in hugetlb_wp(). The
> > > + * pagecache_folio could be truncated after being
> > > + * unlocked. So its state should not be relied
> > > + * subsequently.
> > > + *
> > > + * Setting *pagecache_folio_unlocked to true allows the
> > > + * caller to handle any necessary logic related to the
> > > + * folio's unlocked state.
> > > + */
> > > + if (pagecache_folio) {
> > > + folio_unlock(pagecache_folio);
> > > + if (pagecache_folio_unlocked)
> > > + *pagecache_folio_unlocked = true;
> > > + }
> > > /*
> > > * Drop hugetlb_fault_mutex and vma_lock before
> > > * unmapping. unmapping needs to hold vma_lock
> > > @@ -6566,7 +6583,7 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > hugetlb_count_add(pages_per_huge_page(h), mm);
> > > if ((vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> > > /* Optimization, do the COW without a second fault */
> > > - ret = hugetlb_wp(folio, vmf);
> > > + ret = hugetlb_wp(folio, vmf, NULL);
> > > }
> > > spin_unlock(vmf->ptl);
> > > @@ -6638,6 +6655,7 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
> > > struct address_space *mapping;
> > > int need_wait_lock = 0;
> > > + bool pagecache_folio_unlocked = false;
> > > struct vm_fault vmf = {
> > > .vma = vma,
> > > .address = address & huge_page_mask(h),
> > > @@ -6792,7 +6810,8 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > if (flags & (FAULT_FLAG_WRITE|FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE)) {
> > > if (!huge_pte_write(vmf.orig_pte)) {
> > > - ret = hugetlb_wp(pagecache_folio, &vmf);
> > > + ret = hugetlb_wp(pagecache_folio, &vmf,
> > > + &pagecache_folio_unlocked);
> > > goto out_put_page;
> > > } else if (likely(flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE)) {
> > > vmf.orig_pte = huge_pte_mkdirty(vmf.orig_pte);
> > > @@ -6809,10 +6828,14 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > out_ptl:
> > > spin_unlock(vmf.ptl);
> > > - if (pagecache_folio) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the pagecache_folio is unlocked in hugetlb_wp(), we skip
> > > + * folio_unlock() here.
> > > + */
> > > + if (pagecache_folio && !pagecache_folio_unlocked)
> > > folio_unlock(pagecache_folio);
> > > + if (pagecache_folio)
> > > folio_put(pagecache_folio);
> > > - }
> > > out_mutex:
> > > hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(vma);
> > >
> > > base-commit: d76bb1ebb5587f66b0f8b8099bfbb44722bc08b3
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists