From: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Discussion on race between freed page_ext access and memory offline operation
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:12:25 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78bfc1da-0bc4-ea43-474f-c51a84920a5c@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fefe59d-c893-39f4-3225-65343086c867@redhat.com>
Thanks David for the inputs!!
On 6/27/2022 10:05 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 27.06.22 18:09, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>> The below race between page_ext and online/offline of the respective
>> memory blocks will cause use-after-free on the access of page_ext structure.
>>
>> process1 process2
>> --------- ---------
>> a)doing /proc/page_owner doing memory offline
>> through offline_pages
>>
>> b)PageBuddy check is failed
>> thus proceed to get the
>> page_owner information
>> through page_ext access.
>> page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
>>
>> migrate_pages();
>> ................
>> Since all pages are successfully
>> migrated as part of the offline
>> operation,send MEM_OFFLINE notification
>> where for page_ext it calls:
>> offline_page_ext()-->
>> __free_page_ext()-->
>> free_page_ext()-->
>> vfree(ms->page_ext)
>> mem_section->page_ext = NULL
>>
>> c) Check for the PAGE_EXT flags
>> in the page_ext->flags access
>> results into the use-after-free(leading
>> to the translation faults).
>>
>> As mentioned above, there is really no synchronization between page_ext
>> access and its freeing in the memory_offline. The above is just one
>> example but the problem persists in the other paths too involving
>> page_ext->flags access(eg: page_is_idle()).
>>
>> The memory offline steps(roughly) on a memory block is as below:
>> 1) Isolate all the pages
>> 2) while(1)
>> try free the pages to buddy.(->free_list[MIGRATE_ISOLATE])
>> 3) delete the pages from this buddy list.
>> 4) Then free page_ext.(Note: The struct page is still alive as it is
>> freed only during hot remove of the memory which frees the memmap, which
>> steps the user might not perform).
>>
>> This design leads to the state where struct page is alive but the struct
>> page_ext is freed, where the later is ideally part of the former which
>> just representing the page_flags. This seems to be a wrong design where
>> 'struct page' as a whole is not accessible(Thanks to Minchan for
>> pointing this out).
> Accessing the struct page -- including any extensions -- is invalid if
> the memory section is marked offline.
>
> Usual PFN walkers use pfn_to_online_page() to make sure we have PFN with
> an actual meaning in it.
Is there such enforcement from the kernel side to use the
pfn_to_online_page() while doing the pfn walk? Eg: In the same
read_page_owner()(Not sure of the other places), it is not used while
doing the pfn walk.
>
> There is no real synchronization between pfn_to_online_page() and memory
> offline code. For now it wasn't required because it was never relevant
> in practice.
>
Isn't the race here makes the code to still use the page despite it got
offlined parallel there by making the statement 'Accessing the struct
page -- including any extensions -- is invalid' applicable here. Eg: In
the same read_page_owner(), it can go and try to dump the page_owner of
a page(agree that it dumps the proper page_owner) in print_page_owner(),
where it accesses the page->flags?
> After pfn_to_online_page() it takes quite a long time until memory is
> actually offlined and then, the memmap is removed. Maybe it's different
> for page_ext.
>
As you already well aware, the memmap will not be removed as long as we
are playing just with the offline/online operation but page_ext is freed
even during the offline operation making **part of the struct page is
mapped and the other part is not**.
>
> It smells like page_ext should use some mechanism during MEM_OFFLINE to
> synchronize against any users of its metadata. Generic memory offlining
> code might be the wrong place for that.
>
> page_ext needs a mechanism to synchronize against any users of the data
> it manages. Maybe RCU can help?
Let me give a thought about the feasibility of this. But this requires
making code at all the places where moving the page_ext users under
rcu_lock.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-28 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-27 16:09 Charan Teja Kalla
2022-06-27 16:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-06-28 13:42 ` Charan Teja Kalla [this message]
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=78bfc1da-0bc4-ea43-474f-c51a84920a5c@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_charante@quicinc.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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