From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21460C433E0 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4922343B for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8C4922343B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7F8628D016B; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7A8C98D0156; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:29:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6BE148D016B; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:29:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0093.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.93]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545408D0156 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 03:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1130F180AD807 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77681932524.28.bulb03_1e0efa5274f1 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9CC6C1A for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:01 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: bulb03_1e0efa5274f1 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5396 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1610094540; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TW2seE7Yr8ETbDMfXNyP6hWd1MDNZNgi6O+6g3Zsgts=; b=rCGsjCbN2QYRIBddt1yYK3iczn7gGP3z4B8QPPVfL6WJY/7XSEgMgfPBLeI5d+lcWOpQgw D8jh+LkPACoKqnGIAJJa3jhPaBx6pTGbwB3Aotb7fTIMwb46jl1EkdtQ7EnGrN+fjW8Kfw aqmZyC1D575AG9TiFZvQS+ENHUupf/A= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8A6ACC6; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:28:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Mike Kravetz Cc: Muchun Song , akpm@linux-foundation.org, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, ak@linux.intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] mm: hugetlb: fix a race between freeing and dissolving the page Message-ID: <20210108082858.GV13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20210106084739.63318-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com> <20210106084739.63318-4-songmuchun@bytedance.com> <20210106165632.GT13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20210107084038.GC13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> <509ef752-cc2e-3edf-5871-87f971a7bc0f@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509ef752-cc2e-3edf-5871-87f971a7bc0f@oracle.com> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 07-01-21 16:52:19, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 1/7/21 12:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 06-01-21 12:58:29, Mike Kravetz wrote: > >> On 1/6/21 8:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Wed 06-01-21 16:47:36, Muchun Song wrote: > >>>> There is a race condition between __free_huge_page() > >>>> and dissolve_free_huge_page(). > >>>> > >>>> CPU0: CPU1: > >>>> > >>>> // page_count(page) == 1 > >>>> put_page(page) > >>>> __free_huge_page(page) > >>>> dissolve_free_huge_page(page) > >>>> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock) > >>>> // PageHuge(page) && !page_count(page) > >>>> update_and_free_page(page) > >>>> // page is freed to the buddy > >>>> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock) > >>>> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock) > >>>> clear_page_huge_active(page) > >>>> enqueue_huge_page(page) > >>>> // It is wrong, the page is already freed > >>>> spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock) > >>>> > >>>> The race windows is between put_page() and spin_lock() which > >>>> is in the __free_huge_page(). > >>> > >>> The race window reall is between put_page and dissolve_free_huge_page. > >>> And the result is that the put_page path would clobber an unrelated page > >>> (either free or already reused page) which is quite serious. > >>> Fortunatelly pages are dissolved very rarely. I believe that user would > >>> require to be privileged to hit this by intention. > >>> > >>>> We should make sure that the page is already on the free list > >>>> when it is dissolved. > >>> > >>> Another option would be to check for PageHuge in __free_huge_page. Have > >>> you considered that rather than add yet another state? The scope of the > >>> spinlock would have to be extended. If that sounds more tricky then can > >>> we check the page->lru in the dissolve path? If the page is still > >>> PageHuge and reference count 0 then there shouldn't be many options > >>> where it can be queued, right? > >> > >> The tricky part with expanding lock scope will be the potential call to > >> hugepage_subpool_put_pages as it may also try to acquire the hugetlb_lock. > > > > Can we rearrange the code and move hugepage_subpool_put_pages after all > > this is done? Or is there any strong reason for the particular ordering? > > The reservation code is so fragile, I always get nervous when making > any changes. However, the straight forward patch below passes some > simple testing. The only difference I can see is that global counts > are adjusted before sub-pool counts. This should not be an issue as > global and sub-pool counts are adjusted independently (not under the > same lock). Allocation code checks sub-pool counts before global > counts. So, there is a SMALL potential that a racing allocation which > previously succeeded would now fail. I do not think this is an issue > in practice. > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c > index 3b38ea958e95..658593840212 100644 > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > @@ -1395,6 +1395,11 @@ static void __free_huge_page(struct page *page) > (struct hugepage_subpool *)page_private(page); > bool restore_reserve; > > + spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock); > + /* check for race with dissolve_free_huge_page/update_and_free_page */ > + if (!PageHuge(page)) > + return; > + This really wants to unlock the lock, right? But this is indeed what I've had in mind. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs