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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1783C76190 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F0C216F4 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 51F0C216F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B63138E002A; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B14D88E001C; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A03078E002A; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com (mail-qt1-f199.google.com [209.85.160.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A6F8E001C for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id o11so34769839qtq.10 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=VBgul7HxRwUXu+djqbZSy3DHzU0zb3bRVlYqd2unL5k=; b=hyyMvS3dnllVZsDsFCHgqE9+kSfmz+VW0H1Iv2ZlCsjiDfKiSj9nKWcIINf9IwGJi8 kh8pgjZJOX6AF0AK9ne3wEjbsSXz7GKPyCb/BuMpDWh/qpXiiU++WLYsYyY0ebHXHGJS HtsidTbaARlh9P87FP4v+5qISdim8BaUwVKTatKBPP1RN5TcfWBJgzNsRX7asU4yitbU CO4Fk1aS0iOrRncshwbqfHNtr4W+PrcWmBinSJ5+Mi+M+wi3uT2tNUJnD3wb55MjLyot ilF+4K1UNmYmD8oQ+iYNcsqSsHn7I9klAxX8jcL2nBH0WEJXqV51xXXhXxpnmKqeVgMi TqNw== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXZb7b5oqj7iw3tXJoCjOEjqLsEhJdf1w9Qv225B4xj1+f7jFgX NaXCA3gt/u4GTCvRTxk2FnHiGgny4v0i/3AEpy50blH1tksY3r0jy48E0ZVM5KPqc0N8OBSXhfb c5iRNY57AmezgZXw0eZtZKFEEJFceEzi1FEB69+DbFEUNA7501topuPlFR6Tm+05fHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15f0:: with SMTP id p16mr56430431qkm.141.1564026303213; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwdZRCXfSYhlHks4pf5vj2agcnfN9MbPkcxQFUa0nWhu2saZgScAEEwXyC3AmHnhjefA0/1 X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15f0:: with SMTP id p16mr56430407qkm.141.1564026302315; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:45:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564026302; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ox/u4YiHhbV65SU/ATE19Y5GwEe2BTcURtlBNKDfndITmBIthGXZIBJ48lOWdcTrDp gpYVTdemommpEZh7l00XZOOK4qLGDg4Li3xOtCY2mxAioxDKT88zLjeYVYCWFqXrd/6Q UzUw4WL9MOEiAIBYoUZAmolFisSX0rXPn59xyOgg+SWkKOjShk6PDtrCNNe7BkFSM1hb 2aixjSbbDCHZFWm4v2mzKwBXujP6RIFUwnEDQ3a7saPMo/8nwFWvZD9cUC4dqaTSram3 C+UGR1Qe3NSDZA48VLW14BcnS+JTJOIkwLyA71d9/0Pd2lDVR+6cs4fJ9nxGD3m1VDSl uKqA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=VBgul7HxRwUXu+djqbZSy3DHzU0zb3bRVlYqd2unL5k=; b=yeKByP0qlAAo8prCo1aTajPDkYSiFMmTrOjyVcf0Rzoi6rAHR5SZ2XBMhY8lm22kVD t9D3hZO6A54ZBqZIr2UjzK5quMEshxY8M1ZE3VXc4QkceVF23KIzaMI+yilwYjwNiza/ 0d73BEBHkUNFi9VUT1LIAtW/5ZVInnoi3b4oeWRgcPSTpOLXFouByxGznbYgxa//m1fz 5UDqCkaEt8Vh+6J8kGsArI0mueNoVJqJRVw6K2naoWhgBnLp+8W3XuSf4wEikbURGH+9 FBLAv5pm8kdjtsYN42Y1dMW4MYa2cr2xf3hXxYihzgHfuk/SD0QERJJORVDOhI9vjwA2 fnEA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x12si9718508qta.126.2019.07.24.20.45.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14BF30C62A0; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.18] (ovpn-12-18.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D9B60603; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:44:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: syzbot , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org References: <20190723010156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <124be1a2-1c53-8e65-0f06-ee2294710822@redhat.com> <20190723032800-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190723062221-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <9baa4214-67fd-7ad2-cbad-aadf90bbfc20@redhat.com> <20190723110219-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190724040238-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <3dfa2269-60ba-7dd8-99af-5aef8552bd98@redhat.com> <20190724142533-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:44:27 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190724142533-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:01 +0000 (UTC) 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: On 2019/7/25 上午2:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:08:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2019/7/24 下午4:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2019/7/23 下午11:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:34:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> On 2019/7/23 下午6:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Yes, since there could be multiple co-current invalidation requests. We need >>>>>>>> count them to make sure we don't pin wrong pages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I also wonder about ordering. kvm has this: >>>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>>> * Used to check for invalidations in progress, of the pfn that is >>>>>>>>> * returned by pfn_to_pfn_prot below. >>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>> mmu_seq = kvm->mmu_notifier_seq; >>>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>>> * Ensure the read of mmu_notifier_seq isn't reordered with PTE reads in >>>>>>>>> * gfn_to_pfn_prot() (which calls get_user_pages()), so that we don't >>>>>>>>> * risk the page we get a reference to getting unmapped before we have a >>>>>>>>> * chance to grab the mmu_lock without mmu_notifier_retry() noticing. >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> * This smp_rmb() pairs with the effective smp_wmb() of the combination >>>>>>>>> * of the pte_unmap_unlock() after the PTE is zapped, and the >>>>>>>>> * spin_lock() in kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_() before >>>>>>>>> * mmu_notifier_seq is incremented. >>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>> smp_rmb(); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does this apply to us? Can't we use a seqlock instead so we do >>>>>>>>> not need to worry? >>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with kvm MMU internals, but we do everything under of >>>>>>>> mmu_lock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> I don't think this helps at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's no lock between checking the invalidate counter and >>>>>>> get user pages fast within vhost_map_prefetch. So it's possible >>>>>>> that get user pages fast reads PTEs speculatively before >>>>>>> invalidate is read. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> In vhost_map_prefetch() we do: >>>>>> >>>>>>         spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>>>> >>>>>>         ... >>>>>> >>>>>>         err = -EFAULT; >>>>>>         if (vq->invalidate_count) >>>>>>                 goto err; >>>>>> >>>>>>         ... >>>>>> >>>>>>         npinned = __get_user_pages_fast(uaddr->uaddr, npages, >>>>>>                                         uaddr->write, pages); >>>>>> >>>>>>         ... >>>>>> >>>>>>         spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this not sufficient? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> So what orders __get_user_pages_fast wrt invalidate_count read? >>>> So in invalidate_end() callback we have: >>>> >>>> spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>> --vq->invalidate_count; >>>>         spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>> >>>> >>>> So even PTE is read speculatively before reading invalidate_count (only in >>>> the case of invalidate_count is zero). The spinlock has guaranteed that we >>>> won't read any stale PTEs. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> I'm sorry I just do not get the argument. >>> If you want to order two reads you need an smp_rmb >>> or stronger between them executed on the same CPU. >>> >>> Executing any kind of barrier on another CPU >>> will have no ordering effect on the 1st one. >>> >>> >>> So if CPU1 runs the prefetch, and CPU2 runs invalidate >>> callback, read of invalidate counter on CPU1 can bypass >>> read of PTE on CPU1 unless there's a barrier >>> in between, and nothing CPU2 does can affect that outcome. >>> >>> >>> What did I miss? >> >> It doesn't harm if PTE is read before invalidate_count, this is because: >> >> 1) This speculation is serialized with invalidate_range_end() because of the >> spinlock >> >> 2) This speculation can only make effect when we read invalidate_count as >> zero. >> >> 3) This means the speculation is done after the last invalidate_range_end() >> and because of the spinlock, when we enter the critical section of spinlock >> in prefetch, we can not see any stale PTE that was unmapped before. >> >> Am I wrong? >> >> Thanks > OK I think you are right. Sorry it took me a while to figure out. No problem. So do you want me to send a V2 of the fixes (e.g with the conversion from synchronize_rcu() to kfree_rcu()). Or you want something else. (e.g revert or a config option)? Thanks