From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: Potential race in TLB flush batching?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:09:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60FF1876-AC4F-49BB-BC36-A144C3B6EA9E@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170726234025.GA4491@bbox>
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello Nadav,
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:18:37PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 02:43:06PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>>> I'm relying on the fact you are the madv_free author to determine if
>>>>> it's really necessary. The race in question is CPU 0 running madv_free
>>>>> and updating some PTEs while CPU 1 is also running madv_free and looking
>>>>> at the same PTEs. CPU 1 may have writable TLB entries for a page but fail
>>>>> the pte_dirty check (because CPU 0 has updated it already) and potentially
>>>>> fail to flush. Hence, when madv_free on CPU 1 returns, there are still
>>>>> potentially writable TLB entries and the underlying PTE is still present
>>>>> so that a subsequent write does not necessarily propagate the dirty bit
>>>>> to the underlying PTE any more. Reclaim at some unknown time at the future
>>>>> may then see that the PTE is still clean and discard the page even though
>>>>> a write has happened in the meantime. I think this is possible but I could
>>>>> have missed some protection in madv_free that prevents it happening.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the detail. You didn't miss anything. It can happen and then
>>>> it's really bug. IOW, if application does write something after madv_free,
>>>> it must see the written value, not zero.
>>>>
>>>> How about adding [set|clear]_tlb_flush_pending in tlb batchin interface?
>>>> With it, when tlb_finish_mmu is called, we can know we skip the flush
>>>> but there is pending flush, so flush focefully to avoid madv_dontneed
>>>> as well as madv_free scenario.
>>>
>>> I *think* this is ok as it's simply more expensive on the KSM side in
>>> the event of a race but no other harmful change is made assuming that
>>> KSM is the only race-prone. The check for mm_tlb_flush_pending also
>>> happens under the PTL so there should be sufficient protection from the
>>> mm struct update being visible at teh right time.
>>>
>>> Check using the test program from "mm: Always flush VMA ranges affected
>>> by zap_page_range v2" if it handles the madvise case as well as that
>>> would give some degree of safety. Make sure it's tested against 4.13-rc2
>>> instead of mmotm which already includes the madv_dontneed fix. If yours
>>> works for both then it supersedes the mmotm patch.
>>>
>>> It would also be interesting if Nadav would use his slowdown hack to see
>>> if he can still force the corruption.
>>
>> The proposed fix for the KSM side is likely to work (I will try later), but
>> on the tlb_finish_mmu() side, I think there is a problem, since if any TLB
>> flush is performed by tlb_flush_mmu(), flush_tlb_mm_range() will not be
>> executed. This means that tlb_finish_mmu() may flush one TLB entry, leave
>> another one stale and not flush it.
>
> Okay, I will change that part like this to avoid partial flush problem.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> index 1c42d69490e4..87d0ebac6605 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -529,10 +529,13 @@ static inline cpumask_t *mm_cpumask(struct mm_struct *mm)
> * The barriers below prevent the compiler from re-ordering the instructions
> * around the memory barriers that are already present in the code.
> */
> -static inline bool mm_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +static inline int mm_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> + int nr_pending;
> +
> barrier();
> - return atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_pending) > 0;
> + nr_pending = atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
> + return nr_pending;
> }
> static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index d5c5e6497c70..b5320e96ec51 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -286,11 +286,15 @@ bool tlb_flush_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> struct mmu_gather_batch *batch, *next;
> - bool flushed = tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
>
> + if (!tlb->fullmm && !tlb->need_flush_all &&
> + mm_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm) > 1) {
I saw you noticed my comment about the access of the flag without a lock. I
must say it feels strange that a memory barrier would be needed here, but
that what I understood from the documentation.
> + tlb->start = min(start, tlb->start);
> + tlb->end = max(end, tlb->end);
Err… You open-code mmu_gather which is arch-specific. It appears that all of
them have start and end members, but not need_flush_all. Besides, I am not
sure whether they regard start and end the same way.
> + }
> +
> + tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
> clear_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);
> - if (!flushed && mm_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm))
> - flush_tlb_mm_range(tlb->mm, start, end, 0UL);
>
> /* keep the page table cache within bounds */
> check_pgt_cache();
>> Note also that the use of set/clear_tlb_flush_pending() is only applicable
>> following my pending fix that changes the pending indication from bool to
>> atomic_t.
>
> Sure, I saw it in current mmots. Without your good job, my patch never work. :)
> Thanks for the head up.
Thanks, I really appreciate it.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-27 0:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-11 0:52 Potential race in TLB flush batching? Nadav Amit
2017-07-11 6:41 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 7:30 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-11 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 10:40 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-11 13:20 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 14:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-11 15:53 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 17:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-11 19:18 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 20:06 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-11 21:09 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 20:09 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 21:52 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-11 22:27 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-11 22:34 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-12 8:27 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-12 23:27 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-12 23:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-12 23:42 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-13 5:38 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-13 16:05 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-13 16:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-13 6:07 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-13 16:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-13 17:07 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-13 17:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-13 18:23 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-14 23:16 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-15 15:55 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-15 16:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-17 7:49 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-18 21:28 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-19 7:41 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-19 19:41 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-19 19:58 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-19 20:20 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-19 21:47 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-19 22:19 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-19 22:59 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-19 23:39 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-20 7:43 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-22 1:19 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-24 9:58 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-24 19:46 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-25 7:37 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-25 8:51 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-25 9:11 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-25 10:10 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-26 5:43 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-26 9:22 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-26 19:18 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-26 23:40 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-27 0:09 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2017-07-27 0:34 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-27 0:48 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-27 1:13 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-27 7:04 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-27 7:21 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-27 16:04 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-27 17:36 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-26 23:44 ` Minchan Kim
2017-07-11 22:07 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-11 22:33 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-14 7:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-14 8:31 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-14 9:02 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-14 9:27 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-14 22:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-07-11 16:22 ` Nadav Amit
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=60FF1876-AC4F-49BB-BC36-A144C3B6EA9E@gmail.com \
--to=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
/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).