From: "Zi Yan" <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, gup: prevent pmd checking race in follow_pmd_mask()
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:02:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65E6BD75-FBA6-43AC-AC5A-B952DE409BC8@cs.rutgers.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180404032257.11422-1-ying.huang@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1495 bytes --]
On 3 Apr 2018, at 23:22, Huang, Ying wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
>
> mmap_sem will be read locked when calling follow_pmd_mask(). But this
> cannot prevent PMD from being changed for all cases when PTL is
> unlocked, for example, from pmd_trans_huge() to pmd_none() via
> MADV_DONTNEED. So it is possible for the pmd_present() check in
> follow_pmd_mask() encounter a none PMD. This may cause incorrect
> VM_BUG_ON() or infinite loop. Fixed this via reading PMD entry again
> but only once and checking the local variable and pmd_none() in the
> retry loop.
>
> As Kirill pointed out, with PTL unlocked, the *pmd may be changed
> under us, so read it directly again and again may incur weird bugs.
> So although using *pmd directly other than pmd_present() checking may
> be safe, it is still better to replace them to read *pmd once and
> check the local variable for multiple times.
I see you point there. The patch wants to provide a consistent value
for all race checks. Specifically, this patch is trying to avoid the inconsistent
reads of *pmd for if-statements, which causes problem when both if-condition reads *pmd and
the statements inside "if" reads *pmd again and two reads can give different values.
Am I right about this?
If yes, the problem can be solved by something like:
if (!pmd_present(tmpval = *pmd)) {
check tmpval instead of *pmd;
}
Right?
I just wonder if we need some general code for all race checks.
Thanks.
--
Best Regards
Yan Zi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-04 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-04 3:22 Huang, Ying
2018-04-04 15:02 ` Zi Yan [this message]
2018-04-06 1:57 ` huang ying
2018-04-06 2:16 ` Zi Yan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=65E6BD75-FBA6-43AC-AC5A-B952DE409BC8@cs.rutgers.edu \
--to=zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox