Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: stop leaking pinned pages in low memory conditions

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.10.24 10:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.10.24 22:22, John Hubbard wrote:
>> If a driver tries to call any of the pin_user_pages*(FOLL_LONGTERM)
>> family of functions, and requests "too many" pages, then the call will
>> erroneously leave pages pinned. This is visible in user space as an
>> actual memory leak.
>>
>> Repro is trivial: just make enough pin_user_pages(FOLL_LONGTERM) calls
>> to exhaust memory.
>>
>> The root cause of the problem is this sequence, within
>> __gup_longterm_locked():
>>
>>       __get_user_pages_locked()
>>       rc = check_and_migrate_movable_pages()
>>
>> ...which gets retried in a loop. The loop error handling is incomplete,
>> clearly due to a somewhat unusual and complicated tri-state error API.
>> But anyway, if -ENOMEM, or in fact, any unexpected error is returned
>> from check_and_migrate_movable_pages(), then __gup_longterm_locked()
>> happily returns the error, while leaving the pages pinned.
>>
>> In the failed case, which is an app that requests (via a device driver)
>> 30720000000 bytes to be pinned, and then exits, I see this:
>>
>>       $ grep foll /proc/vmstat
>>           nr_foll_pin_acquired 7502048
>>           nr_foll_pin_released 2048
>>
>> And after applying this patch, it returns to balanced pins:
>>
>>       $ grep foll /proc/vmstat
>>           nr_foll_pin_acquired 7502048
>>           nr_foll_pin_released 7502048
>>
>> Fix this by unpinning the pages that __get_user_pages_locked() has
>> pinned, in such error cases.
>>
>> Fixes: 24a95998e9ba ("mm/gup.c: simplify and fix check_and_migrate_movable_pages() return codes")
>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: Shigeru Yoshida <syoshida@redhat.com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>    mm/gup.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>> index a82890b46a36..24acf53c8294 100644
>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>> @@ -2492,6 +2492,17 @@ static long __gup_longterm_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>    
>>    		/* FOLL_LONGTERM implies FOLL_PIN */
>>    		rc = check_and_migrate_movable_pages(nr_pinned_pages, pages);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * The __get_user_pages_locked() call happens before we know
>> +		 * that whether it's possible to successfully complete the whole
>> +		 * operation. To compensate for this, if we get an unexpected
>> +		 * error (such as -ENOMEM) then we must unpin everything, before
>> +		 * erroring out.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (rc != -EAGAIN && rc != 0)
>> +			unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
>> +
>>    	} while (rc == -EAGAIN);
> 
> Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply have here after the loop (possibly even
> after the memalloc_pin_restore())
> 
> if (rc)
> 	unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
> 
> But maybe I am missing something.

And staring at memfd_pin_folios(), don't we have the same issue there if
check_and_migrate_movable_folios() fails?


diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
index a82890b46a36..f79974d38608 100644
--- a/mm/gup.c
+++ b/mm/gup.c
@@ -3708,12 +3708,10 @@ long memfd_pin_folios(struct file *memfd, loff_t start, loff_t end,
                 ret = check_and_migrate_movable_folios(nr_folios, folios);
         } while (ret == -EAGAIN);
  
-       memalloc_pin_restore(flags);
-       return ret ? ret : nr_folios;
  err:
         memalloc_pin_restore(flags);
-       unpin_folios(folios, nr_folios);
-
-       return ret;
+       if (ret)
+               unpin_folios(folios, nr_folios);
+       return ret ? ret : nr_folios;
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memfd_pin_folios);


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb