[PATCH v2] mm/mmu_notifiers: Esnure range_end() is paired with range_start()

* [PATCH v2] mm/mmu_notifiers: Esnure range_end() is paired with range_start()
@ 2021-03-11 18:00 Sean Christopherson
  2021-03-11 23:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2021-03-11 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton
  Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, Jason Gunthorpe, David Rientjes,
	Ben Gardon, Michal Hocko, Jérôme Glisse,
	Andrea Arcangeli, Johannes Weiner, Dimitri Sivanich,
	Sean Christopherson

If one or more notifiers fails .invalidate_range_start(), invoke
.invalidate_range_end() for "all" notifiers.  If there are multiple
notifiers, those that did not fail are expecting _start() and _end() to
be paired, e.g. KVM's mmu_notifier_count would become imbalanced.
Disallow notifiers that can fail _start() from implementing _end() so
that it's unnecessary to either track which notifiers rejected _start(),
or had already succeeded prior to a failed _start().

Note, the existing behavior of calling _start() on all notifiers even
after a previous notifier failed _start() was an unintented "feature".
Make it canon now that the behavior is depended on for correctness.

As of today, the bug is likely benign:

  1. The only caller of the non-blocking notifier is OOM kill.
  2. The only notifiers that can fail _start() are the i915 and Nouveau
     drivers.
  3. The only notifiers that utilize _end() are the SGI UV GRU driver
     and KVM.
  4. The GRU driver will never coincide with the i195/Nouveau drivers.
  5. An imbalanced kvm->mmu_notifier_count only causes soft lockup in the
     _guest_, and the guest is already doomed due to being an OOM victim.

Fix the bug now to play nice with future usage, e.g. KVM has a potential
use case for blocking memslot updates in KVM while an invalidation is
in-progress, and failure to unblock would result in said updates being
blocked indefinitely and hanging.

Found by inspection.  Verified by adding a second notifier in KVM that
periodically returns -EAGAIN on non-blockable ranges, triggering OOM,
and observing that KVM exits with an elevated notifier count.

Fixes: 93065ac753e4 ("mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers")
Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---

v2: Reimplemented as suggested by Jason.  Only functional change relative
    to Jason's suggestion is to check invalidate_range_end before calling to
    avoid a NULL pointer dereference.  I also added more comments, hopefully
    they're helpful...

v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210310213117.1444147-1-seanjc@google.com

 include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 10 +++++-----
 mm/mmu_notifier.c            | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
index b8200782dede..1a6a9eb6d3fa 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
@@ -169,11 +169,11 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
 	 * the last refcount is dropped.
 	 *
 	 * If blockable argument is set to false then the callback cannot
-	 * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN. 0 should be returned
-	 * otherwise. Please note that if invalidate_range_start approves
-	 * a non-blocking behavior then the same applies to
-	 * invalidate_range_end.
-	 *
+	 * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN if sleeping would be required.
+	 * 0 should be returned otherwise. Please note that notifiers that can
+	 * fail invalidate_range_start are not allowed to implement
+	 * invalidate_range_end, as there is no mechanism for informing the
+	 * notifier that its start failed.
 	 */
 	int (*invalidate_range_start)(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 				      const struct mmu_notifier_range *range);
diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 61ee40ed804e..459d195d2ff6 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -501,10 +501,33 @@ static int mn_hlist_invalidate_range_start(
 						"");
 				WARN_ON(mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) ||
 					_ret != -EAGAIN);
+				/*
+				 * We call all the notifiers on any EAGAIN,
+				 * there is no way for a notifier to know if
+				 * its start method failed, thus a start that
+				 * does EAGAIN can't also do end.
+				 */
+				WARN_ON(ops->invalidate_range_end);
 				ret = _ret;
 			}
 		}
 	}
+
+	if (ret) {
+		/*
+		 * Must be non-blocking to get here.  If there are multiple
+		 * notifiers and one or more failed start, any that succeeded
+		 * start are expecting their end to be called.  Do so now.
+		 */
+		hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(subscription, &subscriptions->list,
+					 hlist, srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
+			if (!subscription->ops->invalidate_range_end)
+				continue;
+
+			subscription->ops->invalidate_range_end(subscription,
+								range);
+		}
+	}
 	srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
 
 	return ret;
-- 
2.31.0.rc2.261.g7f71774620-goog


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread