Re: [PATCH -mm v2] mm/page_isolation: fix potential warning from user

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 20.01.20 15:11, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2020, at 9:01 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20.01.20 14:56, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2020, at 8:38 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20.01.20 14:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 20.01.20 14:19, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>>>> It makes sense to call the WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE)
>>>>>> from start_isolate_page_range(), but should avoid triggering it from
>>>>>> userspace, i.e, from is_mem_section_removable() because it could be a
>>>>>> DoS if warn_on_panic is set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While at it, simplify the code a bit by removing an unnecessary jump
>>>>>> label and a local variable, so set_migratetype_isolate() could really
>>>>>> return a bool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: Improve the commit log.
>>>>>>   Warn for all start_isolate_page_range() users not just offlining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c     | 11 ++++-------
>>>>>> mm/page_isolation.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>>> index 621716a25639..3c4eb750a199 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>>> @@ -8231,7 +8231,7 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> 		if (is_migrate_cma(migratetype))
>>>>>> 			return NULL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -		goto unmovable;
>>>>>> +		return page;
>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	for (; iter < pageblock_nr_pages; iter++) {
>>>>>> @@ -8241,7 +8241,7 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> 		page = pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 		if (PageReserved(page))
>>>>>> -			goto unmovable;
>>>>>> +			return page;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 		/*
>>>>>> 		 * If the zone is movable and we have ruled out all reserved
>>>>>> @@ -8261,7 +8261,7 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> 			unsigned int skip_pages;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			if (!hugepage_migration_supported(page_hstate(head)))
>>>>>> -				goto unmovable;
>>>>>> +				return page;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			skip_pages = compound_nr(head) - (page - head);
>>>>>> 			iter += skip_pages - 1;
>>>>>> @@ -8303,12 +8303,9 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> 		 * is set to both of a memory hole page and a _used_ kernel
>>>>>> 		 * page at boot.
>>>>>> 		 */
>>>>>> -		goto unmovable;
>>>>>> +		return page;
>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>> 	return NULL;
>>>>>> -unmovable:
>>>>>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
>>>>>> -	return pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>>> index e70586523ca3..31f5516f5d54 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>>> @@ -15,12 +15,12 @@
>>>>>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>>>>>> #include <trace/events/page_isolation.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_flags)
>>>>>> +static bool set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype,
>>>>>> +				    int isol_flags)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why this change?
>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> -	struct page *unmovable = NULL;
>>>>>> +	struct page *unmovable = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, why this change?
>>>>>
>>>>>> 	struct zone *zone;
>>>>>> 	unsigned long flags;
>>>>>> -	int ret = -EBUSY;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	zone = page_zone(page);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -49,21 +49,25 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
>>>>>> 									NULL);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 		__mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, -nr_pages, mt);
>>>>>> -		ret = 0;
>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> out:
>>>>>> 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
>>>>>> -	if (!ret)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!unmovable) {
>>>>>> 		drain_all_pages(zone);
>>>>>> -	else if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
>>>>>> -		/*
>>>>>> -		 * printk() with zone->lock held will guarantee to trigger a
>>>>>> -		 * lockdep splat, so defer it here.
>>>>>> -		 */
>>>>>> -		dump_page(unmovable, "unmovable page");
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -	return ret;
>>>>>> +	} else {
>>>>>> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && !IS_ERR(unmovable))
>>>>>> +			/*
>>>>>
>>>>> Why this change? (!IS_ERR)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things here look unrelated - or I am missing something :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I'd prefer this change without any such cleanups (e.g., I don't
>>>> like returning a bool from this function and the IS_ERR handling, makes
>>>> the function harder to read than before)
>>>
>>> What is Michal or Andrew’s opinion? BTW, a bonus point to return a bool
>>> is that it helps the code robustness in general, as UBSAN will be able to
>>> catch any abuse.
>>>
>>
>> A return type of bool on a function that does not test a property
>> ("has_...", "is"...") is IMHO confusing.
> 
> That is fine. It could be renamed to set_migratetype_is_isolate() or
> is_set_migratetype_isolate() which seems pretty minor because we
> have no consistency in the naming of this in linux kernel at all, i.e.,
> many existing bool function names without those test of properties. 

It does not query a property, so "is_set_migratetype_isolate()" is plain
wrong.

Anyhow, Michal does not seem to care.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb