From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913C6C021B3 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:36:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 10BA0280017; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0954328000B; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:36:43 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E29F1280017; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:36:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC6128000B for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EEB4B30D for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:36:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83142237444.29.A4F60B2 Received: from mail-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49898160004 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KWKlRG4h; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of 21cnbao@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=21cnbao@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1740101800; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=dQel4KqqxYlgH/qOSl9x/DKFeBn1B6rTaFzOVEKZD8s=; b=vEVjTH+AGyFkLc8AJLMUfaviYQaw4Hgt0xYznxGqgGPc40IZ20EQFzUJxebRxsvxGwAbFN +ptPZx4hpVykxpYGITlIvShZ3Mq+SgZUkR7k56C8c1zPS79BTo4Fh3+c1CS3jdiSrmEUGL ef2heEIHrehunThtI4/dRTPFp3KhJ6M= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1740101800; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=OCon75em5bwCvpasqGDnVP3FAQQByAiF0LcGnJ0Q9SowoUVhztDHWd9UHssd2eFG2psaZ3 SaNZz2Wx47gbmtBmCUUf7/6ggFczdisGox7VSJ4PwhMi2+ah15BWpgzHO6ecKZGxGAVZ1e Q2FwfifHPDslLDWm4MJKLeGgQy69VdQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KWKlRG4h; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of 21cnbao@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=21cnbao@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-8694ffca83eso331281241.1 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:36:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740101799; x=1740706599; darn=kvack.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=dQel4KqqxYlgH/qOSl9x/DKFeBn1B6rTaFzOVEKZD8s=; b=KWKlRG4hgt0ECCIZWlLChsoGRiErbPYTmW4fXX929MGkzQoOfKWvcBct95YOOfRi2o gHv7zH6uyAeMZp1CzVt9QjlJLCwbyvB/naDlHrltpAHu/yj2peRYm1Tn89wb/0vPfmrt ujzTCWKesCD/4NROtqwOh3YJhHgamtlGgwGVt/KekOHowZAhIygTphbs/z21pRZBBoRN /RDmtiNX4WIZm7xJpHTIVqmlM4Cl9Qcbu4a2DcsQlqismPYoagA/qab8Z/OcoVtG130l akD2OonyBU17Qh8KgILn/lzl1trvw1NgQ+OyDgnHmXDYgtkmiZlZJGoWhsBXgzxfdDOs I9nA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740101799; x=1740706599; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dQel4KqqxYlgH/qOSl9x/DKFeBn1B6rTaFzOVEKZD8s=; b=uCFGEZTOUQCwW3kk8pTbw+YQ8Qyb4jTiHFvtVGXXibTIdGyS1FyqpBtUyqjoZRgVlC 8p1CXfXyCX6n4Mfg/6VeJanmvogxphBBYMGfU4yd/gcKI1GVYMiGQj5Rci9JSQuWmJmY XWXVPuBptITxa1SAKt9HQJp6coll8zJCrAhjVEHSTM7xQTSVgUoagJHD56jPTzIXo2+f GoPFMZY5NfM6N1tICjMm7w4KL+5aJqjqSTbt4e/5tknTYJuFHS0lNn0naW+2+k/KBTi6 iUO8WHndUc8rWmDDQ2ZVjWnz7oZklrHSRFyuDjW9i16SIeL6RfVotR96oZtrLkDp8hdN bQmQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWBhGB21JjFRU7bjc9afvhAzyp8rXv3MO0yPfeHttYzPRJfuRn4myrfCz2SoxI5/BnBZJY2TTVgLw==@kvack.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YypFSzrUPQ6l/JxTAqRRfMldpjI194LGixchYtt6RKB7sJZqMxq 6gK5gu0RjHX/GNJMl3vBG2y7o3wIRpYYMXONL8esRu2ohAN5tNE661V4cSk71hhftcd3bPjs/x7 D5QHlxcCcD0Sa9M/T8ZrSiPQJzaI= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncslyGbThcHjiHZjjAkTMOuS/hBqBdoPmzthMGkOFCFfGdek5rclJ3zOOQJ5FJS 03jMHwixf+nExzxfiIFG7jjpDmoP7CBdfqTM+kjJR/FD26mTlZL8wsUQcOwnx+zIMLkdxwKLkGt JcxC5GFU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IESbiHNBvWRKj5VOcEqyBOl1nbmv9qSww9gb73Mfq0ZldpuXTpQ99EDbEjIcwIJywwUpS0bxprbp5SRbWE4yuc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:f9a:b0:4bb:eb4a:fa03 with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4bfc01cf2d4mr1291866137.23.1740101799117; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:36:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250219112519.92853-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:36:27 +1300 X-Gm-Features: AWEUYZkSW--msgIBLeqZTKMnk-eQVBhr1ZP2UygfjAv_hWP4COZlYOEfhbkdifE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Fix kernel BUG when userfaultfd_move encounters swapcache To: Peter Xu Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Lokesh Gidra , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhengtangquan@oppo.com, Barry Song , Andrea Arcangeli , Al Viro , Axel Rasmussen , Brian Geffon , Christian Brauner , David Hildenbrand , Hugh Dickins , Jann Horn , Kalesh Singh , "Liam R . Howlett" , Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Nicolas Geoffray , Ryan Roberts , Shuah Khan , ZhangPeng , Yu Zhao Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49898160004 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Stat-Signature: cibmfdmyayxfs81b7s48ynn5q54eicwd X-HE-Tag: 1740101800-870006 X-HE-Meta: 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 uXdyUD45 axxoQlBRCkiiKG/7e2+ZkKgCufSE68QzJMmwOAPeSgPrM5dE9QCEIE/+Byg1KVJIux3kyG87rQGILdTQAU+QR1oVlu9QYBvfrxv1UPstxx1ojXpWI9tzzCQlNwF5OY7N8x9zaGhXJGwPg0LirkW9Vi3CsIK8ir2NAvB0+W8uoRF8u0SXtYSaH1qzWC3VXsfsv0UKTmnW9Aox8W6+krWm/pWqMZOQchfOhNoI9bthNo8kHLbm/+SBka6JRvNGyfehXhL1ENdCUzfJSN/TX+nKUDlYDZcCEswDtLaVkB+623pNrg6KLJZdc+yaw4b1IN2Lza8E7QgX5I/LQUXVbWP1QCXOdV3BMS7bcEeAQ5MV1luvAR+BTEo1lMCVVTQjwRx5UDMh2o+CoF9amZGv9sjwSPvVwz5wbBz15ZbhgIZzB5qWx3FHsE1o+jn8idXwqfw0K0OaiwK8bNFno/+w= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:59=E2=80=AFAM Peter Xu wrote= : > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 12:04:40PM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:15=E2=80=AFAM Peter Xu w= rote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:37:50AM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:27=E2=80=AFAM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:25=E2=80=AFAM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail= .com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Barry Song > > > > > > > > > > > > userfaultfd_move() checks whether the PTE entry is present or a > > > > > > swap entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > - If the PTE entry is present, move_present_pte() handles folio > > > > > > migration by setting: > > > > > > > > > > > > src_folio->index =3D linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr); > > > > > > > > > > > > - If the PTE entry is a swap entry, move_swap_pte() simply copi= es > > > > > > the PTE to the new dst_addr. > > > > > > > > > > > > This approach is incorrect because even if the PTE is a swap > > > > > > entry, it can still reference a folio that remains in the swap > > > > > > cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > If do_swap_page() is triggered, it may locate the folio in the > > > > > > swap cache. However, during add_rmap operations, a kernel panic > > > > > > can occur due to: > > > > > > page_pgoff(folio, page) !=3D linear_page_index(vma, address) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the report and reproducer! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $./a.out > /dev/null > > > > > > [ 13.336953] page: refcount:6 mapcount:1 mapping:00000000f43d= b19c index:0xffffaf150 pfn:0x4667c > > > > > > [ 13.337520] head: order:2 mapcount:1 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pa= ges_mapped:1 pincount:0 > > > > > > [ 13.337716] memcg:ffff00000405f000 > > > > > > [ 13.337849] anon flags: 0x3fffc0000020459(locked|uptodate|di= rty|owner_priv_1|head|swapbacked|node=3D0|zone=3D0|lastcpupid=3D0xffff) > > > > > > [ 13.338630] raw: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff80008= 507b538 ffff000006260361 > > > > > > [ 13.338831] raw: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 000000060= 0000000 ffff00000405f000 > > > > > > [ 13.339031] head: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff8000= 8507b538 ffff000006260361 > > > > > > [ 13.339204] head: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 00000006= 00000000 ffff00000405f000 > > > > > > [ 13.339375] head: 03fffc0000000202 fffffdffc0199f01 ffffffff= 00000000 0000000000000001 > > > > > > [ 13.339546] head: 0000000000000004 0000000000000000 00000000= ffffffff 0000000000000000 > > > > > > [ 13.339736] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_pgoff(f= olio, page) !=3D linear_page_index(vma, address)) > > > > > > [ 13.340190] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > > [ 13.340316] kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:1380! > > > > > > [ 13.340683] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1= ] PREEMPT SMP > > > > > > [ 13.340969] Modules linked in: > > > > > > [ 13.341257] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 107 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6= .14.0-rc3-gcf42737e247a-dirty #299 > > > > > > [ 13.341470] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > > > > > > [ 13.341671] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT = -SSBS BTYPE=3D--) > > > > > > [ 13.341815] pc : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 > > > > > > [ 13.341920] lr : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 > > > > > > [ 13.342018] sp : ffff80008752bb20 > > > > > > [ 13.342093] x29: ffff80008752bb20 x28: fffffdffc0199f00 x27:= 0000000000000001 > > > > > > [ 13.342404] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24:= 0000000000000001 > > > > > > [ 13.342575] x23: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x22: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x21:= fffffdffc0199f00 > > > > > > [ 13.342731] x20: fffffdffc0199f00 x19: ffff000006210700 x18:= 00000000ffffffff > > > > > > [ 13.342881] x17: 6c203d2120296567 x16: 6170202c6f696c6f x15:= 662866666f67705f > > > > > > [ 13.343033] x14: 6567617028454741 x13: 2929737365726464 x12:= ffff800083728ab0 > > > > > > [ 13.343183] x11: ffff800082996bf8 x10: 0000000000000fd7 x9 := ffff80008011bc40 > > > > > > [ 13.343351] x8 : 0000000000017fe8 x7 : 00000000fffff000 x6 := ffff8000829eebf8 > > > > > > [ 13.343498] x5 : c0000000fffff000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 := 0000000000000000 > > > > > > [ 13.343645] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff0000062db980 x0 := 000000000000005f > > > > > > [ 13.343876] Call trace: > > > > > > [ 13.344045] __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 (P) > > > > > > [ 13.344234] folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x22c/0x320 > > > > > > [ 13.344333] do_swap_page+0x1060/0x1400 > > > > > > [ 13.344417] __handle_mm_fault+0x61c/0xbc8 > > > > > > [ 13.344504] handle_mm_fault+0xd8/0x2e8 > > > > > > [ 13.344586] do_page_fault+0x20c/0x770 > > > > > > [ 13.344673] do_translation_fault+0xb4/0xf0 > > > > > > [ 13.344759] do_mem_abort+0x48/0xa0 > > > > > > [ 13.344842] el0_da+0x58/0x130 > > > > > > [ 13.344914] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xc4/0x138 > > > > > > [ 13.345002] el0t_64_sync+0x1ac/0x1b0 > > > > > > [ 13.345208] Code: aa1503e0 f000f801 910f6021 97ff5779 (d4210= 000) > > > > > > [ 13.345504] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > > > > > [ 13.345715] note: a.out[107] exited with irqs disabled > > > > > > [ 13.345954] note: a.out[107] exited with preempt_count 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Fully fixing it would be quite complex, requiring similar handl= ing > > > > > > of folios as done in move_present_pte. > > > > > > > > > > How complex would that be? Is it a matter of adding > > > > > folio_maybe_dma_pinned() checks, doing folio_move_anon_rmap() and > > > > > folio->index =3D linear_page_index like in move_present_pte() or > > > > > something more? > > > > > > > > My main concern is still with large folios that require a split_fol= io() > > > > during move_pages(), as the entire folio shares the same index and > > > > anon_vma. However, userfaultfd_move() moves pages individually, > > > > making a split necessary. > > > > > > > > However, in split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), there is a: > > > > > > > > if (folio_test_writeback(folio)) > > > > return -EBUSY; > > > > > > > > This is likely true for swapcache, right? However, even for move_pr= esent_pte(), > > > > it simply returns -EBUSY: > > > > > > > > move_pages_pte() > > > > { > > > > /* at this point we have src_folio locked */ > > > > if (folio_test_large(src_folio)) { > > > > /* split_folio() can block */ > > > > pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte); > > > > pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte); > > > > src_pte =3D dst_pte =3D NULL; > > > > err =3D split_folio(src_folio); > > > > if (err) > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > /* have to reacquire the folio after it got= split */ > > > > folio_unlock(src_folio); > > > > folio_put(src_folio); > > > > src_folio =3D NULL; > > > > goto retry; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > Do we need a folio_wait_writeback() before calling split_folio()? > > > > > > Maybe no need in the first version to fix the immediate bug? > > > > > > It's also not always the case to hit writeback here. IIUC, writeback = only > > > happens for a short window when the folio was just added into swapcac= he. > > > MOVE can happen much later after that anytime before a swapin. My > > > understanding is that's also what Matthew wanted to point out. It ma= y be > > > better justified of that in a separate change with some performance > > > measurements. > > > > The bug we=E2=80=99re discussing occurs precisely within the short wind= ow you > > mentioned. > > > > 1. add_to_swap: The folio is added to swapcache. > > 2. try_to_unmap: PTEs are converted to swap entries. > > 3. pageout > > 4. Swapcache is cleared. > > Hmm, I see. I was expecting step 4 to be "writeback is cleared".. or at > least that should be step 3.5, as IIUC "writeback" needs to be cleared > before "swapcache" bit being cleared. > > > > > The issue happens between steps 2 and 4, where the PTE is not present, = but > > the folio is still in swapcache - the current code does move_swap_pte()= but does > > not fixup folio->index within swapcache. > > One thing I'm still not clear here is why it's a race condition, rather > than more severe than that. I mean, folio->index is definitely wrong, th= en > as long as the page still in swapcache, we should be able to move the swp > entry over to dest addr of UFFDIO_MOVE, read on dest addr, then it'll see > the page in swapcache with the wrong folio->index already and trigger. > > I wrote a quick test like that, it actually won't trigger.. > > I had a closer look in the code, I think it's because do_swap_page() has > the logic to detect folio->index matching first, and allocate a new folio > if it doesn't match in ksm_might_need_to_copy(). IIUC that was for > ksm.. but it looks like it's functioning too here. > > ksm_might_need_to_copy: > if (folio_test_ksm(folio)) { > if (folio_stable_node(folio) && > !(ksm_run & KSM_RUN_UNMERGE)) > return folio; /* no need to copy it */ > } else if (!anon_vma) { > return folio; /* no need to copy it */ > } else if (folio->index =3D=3D linear_page_index(vma, addr) && <-= --------- [1] > anon_vma->root =3D=3D vma->anon_vma->root) { > return folio; /* still no need to copy it */ > } > ... > > new_folio =3D vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0, vma, addr)= ; <---- [2] > ... > > So I believe what I hit is at [1] it sees index doesn't match, then it > decided to allocate a new folio. In this case, it won't hit your BUG > because it'll be "folio !=3D swapcache" later, so it'll setup the > folio->index for the new one, rather than the sanity check. You're absolutely right. The problem goes beyond just crashes; we're also dealing with CoW when KSM is enabled. As long as we disable KSM(which is true for Android), or when we are dealing with a large folio, ksm_might_need_to_copy() will not allocate a new copy: struct folio *ksm_might_need_to_copy(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr) { struct page *page =3D folio_page(folio, 0); struct anon_vma *anon_vma =3D folio_anon_vma(folio); struct folio *new_folio; if (folio_test_large(folio)) return folio; .... } Thanks for your great findings! For the KSM-enabled and small folio case, it's pretty funny how UFFDIO_MOVE finally turns into a new allocation and copy=E2=80=94 somehow automatically falling back to "UFFDIO_COPY" :-) It's amusing, but debugging it is fun. I'll add your findings to the changelog when I formally send v2, after gath= ering all the code refinement suggestions and implementing the improvements. > > Do you know how your case got triggered, being able to bypass the above [= 1] > which should check folio->index already? > > > > > My point is that if we want a proper fix for mTHP, we'd better handle w= riteback. > > Otherwise, this isn=E2=80=99t much different from directly returning -E= BUSY as proposed > > in this RFC. > > > > For small folios, there=E2=80=99s no split_folio issue, making it relat= ively > > simpler. Lokesh > > mentioned plans to madvise NOHUGEPAGE in ART, so fixing small folios is= likely > > the first priority. > > Agreed. > > -- > Peter Xu > Thanks Barry