From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/11] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_get_or_create and make it reliable
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 22:23:20 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190524012320.GA13614@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6945b6c9-338a-54e6-64df-2590d536910a@nvidia.com>
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 04:38:28PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>
> On 5/23/19 8:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> >
> > As coded this function can false-fail in various racy situations. Make it
> > reliable by running only under the write side of the mmap_sem and avoiding
> > the false-failing compare/exchange pattern.
> >
> > Also make the locking very easy to understand by only ever reading or
> > writing mm->hmm while holding the write side of the mmap_sem.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> > mm/hmm.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> > index e27058e92508b9..ec54be54d81135 100644
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -40,16 +40,6 @@
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HMM_MIRROR)
> > static const struct mmu_notifier_ops hmm_mmu_notifier_ops;
> > -static inline struct hmm *mm_get_hmm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > -{
> > - struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> > -
> > - if (hmm && kref_get_unless_zero(&hmm->kref))
> > - return hmm;
> > -
> > - return NULL;
> > -}
> > -
> > /**
> > * hmm_get_or_create - register HMM against an mm (HMM internal)
> > *
> > @@ -64,11 +54,20 @@ static inline struct hmm *mm_get_hmm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > */
> > static struct hmm *hmm_get_or_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > {
> > - struct hmm *hmm = mm_get_hmm(mm);
> > - bool cleanup = false;
> > + struct hmm *hmm;
> > - if (hmm)
> > - return hmm;
> > + lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(mm->mmap_sem);
> > +
> > + if (mm->hmm) {
> > + if (kref_get_unless_zero(&mm->hmm->kref))
> > + return mm->hmm;
> > + /*
> > + * The hmm is being freed by some other CPU and is pending a
> > + * RCU grace period, but this CPU can NULL now it since we
> > + * have the mmap_sem.
> > + */
> > + mm->hmm = NULL;
>
> Shouldn't there be a "return NULL;" here so it doesn't fall through and
> allocate a struct hmm below?
No, this function should only return NULL on memory allocation
failure.
In this case another thread is busy freeing the hmm but wasn't able to
update mm->hmm to null due to a locking constraint. So we make it null
on behalf of the other thread and allocate a fresh new hmm that is
valid. The freeing thread will complete the free and do nothing with
mm->hmm.
> > static void hmm_fee_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>
> I see Jerome already saw and named this hmm_free_rcu()
> which I agree with.
I do love my typos :)
> > {
> > + struct hmm *hmm = container_of(rcu, struct hmm, rcu);
> > +
> > + down_write(&hmm->mm->mmap_sem);
> > + if (hmm->mm->hmm == hmm)
> > + hmm->mm->hmm = NULL;
> > + up_write(&hmm->mm->mmap_sem);
> > + mmdrop(hmm->mm);
> > +
> > kfree(container_of(rcu, struct hmm, rcu));
> > }
> > static void hmm_free(struct kref *kref)
> > {
> > struct hmm *hmm = container_of(kref, struct hmm, kref);
> > - struct mm_struct *mm = hmm->mm;
> > -
> > - mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(&hmm->mmu_notifier, mm);
> > - spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > - if (mm->hmm == hmm)
> > - mm->hmm = NULL;
> > - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > -
> > - mmdrop(hmm->mm);
> > + mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(&hmm->mmu_notifier, hmm->mm);
> > mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&hmm->rcu, hmm_fee_rcu);
> > }
> >
>
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Ah, you should not send this trailer to the public mailing lists.
Thanks,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-24 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-23 15:34 [RFC PATCH 00/11] mm/hmm: Various revisions from a locking/code review Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] mm/hmm: Fix use after free with struct hmm in the mmu notifiers Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 23:54 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-07 14:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] mm/hmm: Use hmm_mirror not mm as an argument for hmm_register_range Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 18:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] mm/hmm: Hold a mmgrab from hmm to mm Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_get_or_create and make it reliable Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 23:38 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-05-24 1:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2019-05-24 17:06 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] mm/hmm: Improve locking around hmm->dead Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 13:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] mm/hmm: Remove duplicate condition test before wait_event_timeout Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] mm/hmm: Delete hmm_mirror_mm_is_alive() Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] mm/hmm: Use lockdep instead of comments Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 19:33 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-07 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 21:02 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-08 1:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] mm/hmm: Remove racy protection against double-unregistration Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 19:38 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-07 19:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 19:55 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] mm/hmm: Poison hmm_range during unregister Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 20:13 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-07 20:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 15:34 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] mm/hmm: Do not use list*_rcu() for hmm->ranges Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 20:22 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-05-23 19:04 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] mm/hmm: Various revisions from a locking/code review John Hubbard
2019-05-23 19:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 20:59 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-24 13:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 14:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 16:49 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-24 16:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 17:01 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-24 17:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 18:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-24 18:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 18:46 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-24 22:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-27 19:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-24 17:47 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-05-24 17:51 ` Jerome Glisse
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=20190524012320.GA13614@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).