From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, hch@infradead.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, penberg@kernel.org,
rientjes@google.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, urezki@gmail.com,
v-songbaohua@oppo.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev, hailong.liu@oppo.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Xuan Zhuo" <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Eugenio Pérez" <eperezma@redhat.com>,
"Maxime Coquelin" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] vpda: try to fix the potential crash due to misusing __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:42:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEs49KckODWSpe7VPfTeshogni0_eOdkMO0b7zW2A5YX2w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4x+V8jVuM307uGUCXVrZTWGHNKHYqGsj6UAN=QH=yWpqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:00 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 25-07-24 10:50:45, Barry Song wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:27 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 24-07-24 20:55:40, Barry Song wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> > > > > index 791d38d6284c..eff700e5f7a2 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> > > > > @@ -287,28 +287,44 @@ void vduse_domain_remove_user_bounce_pages(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct vduse_bounce_map *map;
> > > > > unsigned long i, count;
> > > > > + struct page **pages = NULL;
> > > > >
> > > > > write_lock(&domain->bounce_lock);
> > > > > if (!domain->user_bounce_pages)
> > > > > goto out;
> > > > > -
> > > > > count = domain->bounce_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > > + write_unlock(&domain->bounce_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pages = kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*pages), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> > > > > + pages[i] = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
> > > >
> > > > AFAICS vduse_domain_release calls this function with
> > > > spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock) so dropping &domain->bounce_lock is not
> > > > sufficient.
> > >
> > > yes. this is true:
> > >
> > > static int vduse_domain_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > {
> > > struct vduse_iova_domain *domain = file->private_data;
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> > > vduse_iotlb_del_range(domain, 0, ULLONG_MAX);
> > > vduse_domain_remove_user_bounce_pages(domain);
> > > vduse_domain_free_kernel_bounce_pages(domain);
> > > spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> > > put_iova_domain(&domain->stream_iovad);
> > > put_iova_domain(&domain->consistent_iovad);
> > > vhost_iotlb_free(domain->iotlb);
> > > vfree(domain->bounce_maps);
> > > kfree(domain);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > This is quite a pain. I admit I don't have knowledge of this driver, and I don't
> > > think it's safe to release two locks and then reacquire them. The situation is
> > > rather complex. Therefore, I would prefer if the VDPA maintainers could
> > > take the lead in implementing a proper fix.
> >
> > Would it be possible to move all that work to a deferred context?
>
> My understanding is that we need to be aware of both the iotlb_lock and
> bounce_lock to implement the correct changes. As long as we still need
> to acquire these two locks in a deferred context, there doesn't seem to
> be any difference.
>
> I can do the memory pre-allocation before spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock),
> but I have no knowledge whether the "count" will change after I make
> the preallocation.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> index 791d38d6284c..7ec87ef33d42 100644
> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> @@ -544,9 +544,12 @@ static int vduse_domain_release(struct inode
> *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> struct vduse_iova_domain *domain = file->private_data;
>
> + struct page **pages;
> + spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock); maybe also + bounce_lock?
> + count = domain->bounce_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
We probably don't need any lock here as bounce_size won't be changed .
> +
> + preallocate_count_pages(pages, count);
> +
> ....
> spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> vduse_iotlb_del_range(domain, 0, ULLONG_MAX);
> - vduse_domain_remove_user_bounce_pages(domain);
> + vduse_domain_remove_user_bounce_pages(domain, pages);
> vduse_domain_free_kernel_bounce_pages(domain);
> spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> put_iova_domain(&domain->stream_iovad);
This seems to work.
Thanks
>
>
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-29 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-24 8:55 [PATCH 0/5] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation Barry Song
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] vpda: try to fix the potential crash due to misusing __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 22:50 ` Barry Song
2024-07-25 6:08 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-25 7:00 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 3:42 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2024-07-29 6:05 ` Barry Song
[not found] ` <CACGkMEuv4M_NaUQPHH59MPevGoJJoYb70LykcCODD=nUvik3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
2024-07-30 3:08 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: Document __GFP_NOFAIL must be blockable Barry Song
2024-07-24 11:58 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-03 23:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: BUG_ON to avoid NULL deference while __GFP_NOFAIL fails Barry Song
2024-07-24 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 10:11 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:10 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: Introduce GFP_NOFAIL with the inclusion of __GFP_RECLAIM Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:12 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] non-mm: discourage the usage of __GFP_NOFAIL and encourage GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-07-24 9:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 9:58 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 13:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 12:25 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 13:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 14:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 14:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-25 1:47 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 9:56 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-29 10:16 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-25 1:38 ` Barry Song
2024-07-25 6:16 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-26 21:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-29 11:50 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-03 22:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-08-05 7:49 ` Michal Hocko
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=CACGkMEs49KckODWSpe7VPfTeshogni0_eOdkMO0b7zW2A5YX2w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=eperezma@redhat.com \
--cc=hailong.liu@oppo.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.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