linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: fix a deadlock with pagecache_folio and hugetlb_fault_mutex

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: <4cc7e0bb-f247-419d-bf6f-07dc5e88c9c1@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 22:00:51 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Gavin Guo <gavinguo@...lia.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: fix a deadlock with pagecache_folio and
 hugetlb_fault_mutex_table

On 28.05.25 17:45, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 05:09:26PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 28.05.25 17:03, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> So I'm not 100% sure we need the folio lock even for copy; IIUC a refcount
>>> would be enough?
>>
>> The introducing patches seem to talk about blocking concurrent migration /
>> rmap walks.
> 
> I thought the main reason was because PageLock protects us against writes,
> so when copying (in case of copying the underlying file), we want the
> file to be stable throughout the copy?

Well, we don't do the same for ordinary pages, why should we do for hugetlb?

See wp_page_copy().

If you have a MAP_PRIVATE mapping of a file and modify the pagecache 
pages concurrently (write to another MAP_SHARED mapping, write() ...), 
there are no guarantees about one observing any specific page state.

At least not that I am aware of ;)


> 
>> Maybe also concurrent fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) is a problem regarding
>> reservations? Not sure ...
> 
> fallocate()->hugetlb_vmdelete_list() tries to grab the vma in write-mode,
> and hugetlb_wp() grabs the lock in read-mode, so we should be covered?

Yeah, maybe that's the case nowadays. Maybe it wasn't in the past ...

> 
> Also, hugetlbfs_punch_hole()->remove_inode_hugepages() will try to grab the mutex.
> 
> The only fishy thing I see is hugetlbfs_zero_partial_page().
> 
> But that is for old_page, and as I said, I thought main reason was to
> protect us against writes during the copy.

See above, I really wouldn't understand why that is required.

> 
>> For 2) I am also not sure if we need need the pagecache folio locked; I
>> doubt it ... but this code is not the easiest to follow.
>   
> I have been staring at that code and thinking about potential scenarios
> for a few days now, and I cannot convice myself that we need
> pagecache_folio's lock when pagecache_folio != old_folio because as a
> matter of fact I cannot think of anything it protects us against.
> 
> I plan to rework this in a more sane way, or at least less offusctaed, and then
> Galvin can fire his syzkaller to check whether we are good.
> 


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb