Re: [PATCH] mm: fix a potential infinite loop in start_isolate_page_range().

[Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2542 bytes --]

On 24 May 2022, at 16:23, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2022 15:47:56 -0400 Zi Yan <zi.yan@sent.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>
>> In isolate_single_pageblock() called by start_isolate_page_range(),
>> there are some pageblock isolation issues causing a potential
>> infinite loop when isolating a page range. This is reported by Qian Cai.
>>
>> 1. the pageblock was isolated by just changing pageblock migratetype
>>    without checking unmovable pages. Calling set_migratetype_isolate() to
>>    isolate pageblock properly.
>> 2. an off-by-one error caused migrating pages unnecessarily, since the page
>>    is not crossing pageblock boundary.
>> 3. migrating a compound page across pageblock boundary then splitting the
>>    free page later has a small race window that the free page might be
>>    allocated again, so that the code will try again, causing an potential
>>    infinite loop. Temporarily set the to-be-migrated page's pageblock to
>>    MIGRATE_ISOLATE to prevent that and bail out early if no free page is
>>    found after page migration.
>>
>> An additional fix to split_free_page() aims to avoid crashing in
>> __free_one_page(). When the free page is split at the specified
>> split_pfn_offset, free_page_order should check both the first bit of
>> free_page_pfn and the last bit of split_pfn_offset and use the smaller one.
>> For example, if free_page_pfn=0x10000, split_pfn_offset=0xc000,
>> free_page_order should first be 0x8000 then 0x4000, instead of 0x4000 then
>> 0x8000, which the original algorithm did.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -1114,13 +1114,16 @@ void split_free_page(struct page *free_page,
>>  	unsigned long flags;
>>  	int free_page_order;
>>
>> +	if (split_pfn_offset == 0)
>> +		return;
>> +
>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>>  	del_page_from_free_list(free_page, zone, order);
>>  	for (pfn = free_page_pfn;
>>  	     pfn < free_page_pfn + (1UL << order);) {
>>  		int mt = get_pfnblock_migratetype(pfn_to_page(pfn), pfn);
>>
>> -		free_page_order = ffs(split_pfn_offset) - 1;
>> +		free_page_order = min(pfn ? __ffs(pfn) : order, __fls(split_pfn_offset));
>
> Why is it testing the zeroness of `pfn' here?  Can pfn==0 even happen?
> If so, it's a legitimate value so why does it get special-cased?

__ffs() and __fls() are undefined if no bit exists, based on their
comments. I checked both pfn and split_pfn_offset against 0
just in case, even if pfn most likely is not going to be 0.

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 854 bytes --]