From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Todd Kjos" <tkjos@google.com>, syzbot+a76129f18c89f3e2ddd4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, ak@linux.intel.com, "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, jack@suse.cz, jrdr.linux@gmail.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, mawilcox@microsoft.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, "Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>, "Todd Kjos" <tkjos@android.com>, "Martijn Coenen" <maco@android.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: possible deadlock in __do_page_fault Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:57:03 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <06b4806c-6b53-85a5-84db-fa432ea4ccd0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190124134646.GA53008@google.com> On 2019/01/24 22:46, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:52:30AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Then, I'm tempted to eliminate shrinker and LRU list (like a draft patch shown >> below). I think this is not equivalent to current code because this shrinks >> upon only range_alloc() time and I don't know whether it is OK to temporarily >> release ashmem_mutex during range_alloc() at "Case #4" of ashmem_pin(), but >> can't we go this direction? > > No, the point of the shrinker is to do a lazy free. We cannot free things > during unpin since it can be pinned again and we need to find that range by > going through the list. We also cannot get rid of any lists. Since if > something is re-pinned, we need to find it and find out if it was purged. We > also need the list for knowing what was unpinned so the shrinker works. > > By the way, all this may be going away quite soon (the whole driver) as I > said, so just give it a little bit of time. > > I am happy to fix it soon if that's not the case (which I should know soon - > like a couple of weeks) but I'd like to hold off till then. > >> By the way, why not to check range_alloc() failure before calling range_shrink() ? > > That would be a nice thing to do. Send a patch? OK. Here is a patch. I chose __GFP_NOFAIL rather than adding error handling, for small GFP_KERNEL allocation won't fail unless current thread was killed by the OOM killer or memory allocation fault injection forces it fail, and range_alloc() will not be called for multiple times from one syscall. But note that doing GFP_KERNEL allocation with ashmem_mutex held has a risk of needlessly invoking the OOM killer because "the point of the shrinker is to do a lazy free" counts on ashmem_mutex not held by GFP_KERNEL allocating thread. Although other shrinkers likely make forward progress by releasing memory, technically you should avoid doing GFP_KERNEL allocation with ashmem_mutex held if shrinker depends on ashmem_mutex not held. From e1c4a9b53b0bb11a0743a8f861915c043deb616d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:52:39 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] staging: android: ashmem: Don't allow range_alloc() to fail. ashmem_pin() is calling range_shrink() without checking whether range_alloc() succeeded. Since memory allocation fault injection might force range_alloc() to fail while range_alloc() is called for only once for one ioctl() request, make range_alloc() not to fail. Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> --- drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c | 17 ++++++----------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c index d40c1d2..a8070a2 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c @@ -171,18 +171,14 @@ static inline void lru_del(struct ashmem_range *range) * @end: The ending page (inclusive) * * This function is protected by ashmem_mutex. - * - * Return: 0 if successful, or -ENOMEM if there is an error */ -static int range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, - struct ashmem_range *prev_range, unsigned int purged, - size_t start, size_t end) +static void range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, + struct ashmem_range *prev_range, unsigned int purged, + size_t start, size_t end) { struct ashmem_range *range; - range = kmem_cache_zalloc(ashmem_range_cachep, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!range) - return -ENOMEM; + range = kmem_cache_zalloc(ashmem_range_cachep, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); range->asma = asma; range->pgstart = start; @@ -193,8 +189,6 @@ static int range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, if (range_on_lru(range)) lru_add(range); - - return 0; } /** @@ -687,7 +681,8 @@ static int ashmem_unpin(struct ashmem_area *asma, size_t pgstart, size_t pgend) } } - return range_alloc(asma, range, purged, pgstart, pgend); + range_alloc(asma, range, purged, pgstart, pgend); + return 0; } /* -- 1.8.3.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Todd Kjos" <tkjos@google.com>, syzbot+a76129f18c89f3e2ddd4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, ak@linux.intel.com, "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, jack@suse.cz, jrdr.linux@gmail.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, mawilcox@microsoft.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, "Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>, "Todd Kjos" <tkjos@android.com>, "Martijn Coenen" <maco@android.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: possible deadlock in __do_page_fault Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:57:03 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <06b4806c-6b53-85a5-84db-fa432ea4ccd0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190124134646.GA53008@google.com> On 2019/01/24 22:46, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:52:30AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Then, I'm tempted to eliminate shrinker and LRU list (like a draft patch shown >> below). I think this is not equivalent to current code because this shrinks >> upon only range_alloc() time and I don't know whether it is OK to temporarily >> release ashmem_mutex during range_alloc() at "Case #4" of ashmem_pin(), but >> can't we go this direction? > > No, the point of the shrinker is to do a lazy free. We cannot free things > during unpin since it can be pinned again and we need to find that range by > going through the list. We also cannot get rid of any lists. Since if > something is re-pinned, we need to find it and find out if it was purged. We > also need the list for knowing what was unpinned so the shrinker works. > > By the way, all this may be going away quite soon (the whole driver) as I > said, so just give it a little bit of time. > > I am happy to fix it soon if that's not the case (which I should know soon - > like a couple of weeks) but I'd like to hold off till then. > >> By the way, why not to check range_alloc() failure before calling range_shrink() ? > > That would be a nice thing to do. Send a patch? OK. Here is a patch. I chose __GFP_NOFAIL rather than adding error handling, for small GFP_KERNEL allocation won't fail unless current thread was killed by the OOM killer or memory allocation fault injection forces it fail, and range_alloc() will not be called for multiple times from one syscall. But note that doing GFP_KERNEL allocation with ashmem_mutex held has a risk of needlessly invoking the OOM killer because "the point of the shrinker is to do a lazy free" counts on ashmem_mutex not held by GFP_KERNEL allocating thread. Although other shrinkers likely make forward progress by releasing memory, technically you should avoid doing GFP_KERNEL allocation with ashmem_mutex held if shrinker depends on ashmem_mutex not held. >From e1c4a9b53b0bb11a0743a8f861915c043deb616d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:52:39 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] staging: android: ashmem: Don't allow range_alloc() to fail. ashmem_pin() is calling range_shrink() without checking whether range_alloc() succeeded. Since memory allocation fault injection might force range_alloc() to fail while range_alloc() is called for only once for one ioctl() request, make range_alloc() not to fail. Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> --- drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c | 17 ++++++----------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c index d40c1d2..a8070a2 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c @@ -171,18 +171,14 @@ static inline void lru_del(struct ashmem_range *range) * @end: The ending page (inclusive) * * This function is protected by ashmem_mutex. - * - * Return: 0 if successful, or -ENOMEM if there is an error */ -static int range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, - struct ashmem_range *prev_range, unsigned int purged, - size_t start, size_t end) +static void range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, + struct ashmem_range *prev_range, unsigned int purged, + size_t start, size_t end) { struct ashmem_range *range; - range = kmem_cache_zalloc(ashmem_range_cachep, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!range) - return -ENOMEM; + range = kmem_cache_zalloc(ashmem_range_cachep, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); range->asma = asma; range->pgstart = start; @@ -193,8 +189,6 @@ static int range_alloc(struct ashmem_area *asma, if (range_on_lru(range)) lru_add(range); - - return 0; } /** @@ -687,7 +681,8 @@ static int ashmem_unpin(struct ashmem_area *asma, size_t pgstart, size_t pgend) } } - return range_alloc(asma, range, purged, pgstart, pgend); + range_alloc(asma, range, purged, pgstart, pgend); + return 0; } /* -- 1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-26 1:57 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-09-20 21:04 possible deadlock in __do_page_fault syzbot 2018-09-20 21:10 ` Andrew Morton 2018-09-20 21:12 ` Todd Kjos 2018-09-20 23:33 ` Joel Fernandes 2018-09-21 6:37 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2018-09-21 23:21 ` Andrew Morton 2019-01-22 10:02 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-22 10:12 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2019-01-22 10:32 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-22 13:52 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2019-01-22 13:54 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2019-01-22 14:08 ` syzbot 2019-01-22 14:08 ` syzbot 2019-01-22 15:32 ` Joel Fernandes 2019-01-23 2:01 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-23 15:57 ` Joel Fernandes 2019-01-24 1:52 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-24 13:46 ` Joel Fernandes 2019-01-25 16:02 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-25 16:02 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-28 16:45 ` Joel Fernandes 2019-01-29 10:44 ` Tetsuo Handa 2019-01-26 1:57 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message] 2019-01-26 1:57 ` Tetsuo Handa 2018-10-01 5:23 ` syzbot
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=06b4806c-6b53-85a5-84db-fa432ea4ccd0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=arve@android.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \ --cc=jrdr.linux@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=maco@android.com \ --cc=mawilcox@microsoft.com \ --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=syzbot+a76129f18c89f3e2ddd4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \ --cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \ --cc=tkjos@android.com \ --cc=tkjos@google.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.