From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f198.google.com (mail-io0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DD96B007E for ; Thu, 5 May 2016 23:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io0-f198.google.com with SMTP id d62so225644808iof.1 for ; Thu, 05 May 2016 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w69si6072067oie.91.2016.05.05.20.08.58 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 May 2016 20:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <572C0A57.7020904@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 11:07:03 +0800 From: zhouchengming MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksm: fix conflict between mmput and scan_get_next_rmap_item References: <1462452176-33462-1-git-send-email-zhouchengming1@huawei.com> <20160505215731.GK28755@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20160505215731.GK28755@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, vbabka@suse.cz, geliangtang@163.com, minchan@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, dingtianhong@huawei.com, huawei.libin@huawei.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, qiuxishi@huawei.com On 2016/5/6 5:57, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Hello Zhou, > > Great catch. > > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote: >> remove_trailing_rmap_items(slot, ksm_scan.rmap_list); >> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); >> >> spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); >> ksm_scan.mm_slot = list_entry(slot->mm_list.next, >> @@ -1666,16 +1667,12 @@ next_mm: >> */ >> hash_del(&slot->link); >> list_del(&slot->mm_list); >> - spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); >> >> free_mm_slot(slot); >> clear_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE,&mm->flags); >> - up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); >> mmdrop(mm); > > I thought the mmap_sem for reading prevented a race of the above > clear_bit against a concurrent madvise(MADV_MERGEABLE) which takes the > mmap_sem for writing. After this change can't __ksm_enter run > concurrently with the clear_bit above introducing a different SMP race > condition? > Yes, I didn't notice this problem... Thanks. >> - } else { >> - spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); >> - up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > > The strict obviously safe fix is just to invert the above two, > up_read; spin_unlock. > > Then I found another instance of this same SMP race condition in > unmerge_and_remove_all_rmap_items() that you didn't fix. > > Actually for the other instance of the bug the implementation above > that releases the mmap_sem early sounds safe, because it's a > ksm_text_exit that takes the clear_bit path, not just the fact we > didn't find a vma with VM_MERGEABLE set and we garbage collect the > mm_slot, while the "mm" may still alive. In the other case the "mm" > isn't alive anymore so the race with MADV_MERGEABLE shouldn't be > possible to materialize. > > Could you fix it by just inverting the up_read/spin_unlock order, in > the place you patched, and add this comment: > > } else { > /* > * up_read(&mm->mmap_sem) first because after > * spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock) run, the "mm" may > * already have been freed under us by __ksm_exit() > * because the "mm_slot" is still hashed and > * ksm_scan.mm_slot doesn't point to it anymore. > */ > up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); > } > > And in unmerge_and_remove_all_rmap_items() same thing, except there > you can apply your up_read() early and you can just drop the "else" > clause. > > . > Your change is better and the comment is good and clear. So I will send a PATCH v2 based on your suggestion. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org