All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
	linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmap locking API: Order lock of nascent mm outside lock of live mm
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 02:17:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689H9hXzaV0_vpFfrvjQD6xAEaPnjok_17zWGHumRNs-ZWg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1kMuPUW8VKp=9=KDLVisa-zuqp+DbYjc=A-kGUi_ik3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> Until now, the mmap lock of the nascent mm was ordered inside the mmap lock
> of the old mm (in dup_mmap() and in UML's activate_mm()).
> A following patch will change the exec path to very broadly lock the
> nascent mm, but fine-grained locking should still work at the same time for
> the new mm.
> To do this in a way that lockdep is happy about, let's turn around the lock
> ordering in both places that currently nest the locks.
> Since SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING is normally used for the inner nesting layer,
> make up our own lock subclass MMAP_LOCK_SUBCLASS_NASCENT and use that
> instead.
>
> The added locking calls in exec_mmap() are temporary; the following patch
> will move the locking out of exec_mmap().

Thanks for doing this.

This is probably a silly question, but I am not sure exactly where we
lock the old MM while bprm is creating the new MM ? I am guessing this
would be only in setup_arg_pages(), copying the args and environment
from the old the the new MM ? If that is correct, then wouldn't it be
sufficient to use mmap_write_lock_nested in setup_arg_pages() ? Or, is
the issue that we'd prefer to have a killable version of it there ?

Also FYI I was going to play with these patches a bit to help answer
these questions on my own, but wasn't able to easily apply them as
they came lightly mangled (whitespace issues) when I saved them.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	linux-um@lists.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmap locking API: Order lock of nascent mm outside lock of live mm
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 02:17:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689H9hXzaV0_vpFfrvjQD6xAEaPnjok_17zWGHumRNs-ZWg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1kMuPUW8VKp=9=KDLVisa-zuqp+DbYjc=A-kGUi_ik3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> Until now, the mmap lock of the nascent mm was ordered inside the mmap lock
> of the old mm (in dup_mmap() and in UML's activate_mm()).
> A following patch will change the exec path to very broadly lock the
> nascent mm, but fine-grained locking should still work at the same time for
> the new mm.
> To do this in a way that lockdep is happy about, let's turn around the lock
> ordering in both places that currently nest the locks.
> Since SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING is normally used for the inner nesting layer,
> make up our own lock subclass MMAP_LOCK_SUBCLASS_NASCENT and use that
> instead.
>
> The added locking calls in exec_mmap() are temporary; the following patch
> will move the locking out of exec_mmap().

Thanks for doing this.

This is probably a silly question, but I am not sure exactly where we
lock the old MM while bprm is creating the new MM ? I am guessing this
would be only in setup_arg_pages(), copying the args and environment
from the old the the new MM ? If that is correct, then wouldn't it be
sufficient to use mmap_write_lock_nested in setup_arg_pages() ? Or, is
the issue that we'd prefer to have a killable version of it there ?

Also FYI I was going to play with these patches a bit to help answer
these questions on my own, but wasn't able to easily apply them as
they came lightly mangled (whitespace issues) when I saved them.

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-02  9:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-02  1:23 [PATCH 0/2] Broad write-locking of nascent mm in execve Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:23 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:23 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] mmap locking API: Order lock of nascent mm outside lock of live mm Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:24   ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:24   ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02  9:17   ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2020-10-02  9:17     ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-10-02  9:17     ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-10-02 11:39     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-10-02 11:39       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-10-02 16:33     ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02 16:33       ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02 16:33       ` Jann Horn
2020-10-03 21:30       ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-10-03 21:30         ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-10-05  1:30         ` Jann Horn
2020-10-05  1:30           ` Jann Horn
2020-10-05  1:30           ` Jann Horn
2020-10-05 12:52           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-10-05 12:52             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-10-02  1:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] exec: Broadly lock nascent mm until setup_arg_pages() Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:25   ` Jann Horn
2020-10-02  1:25   ` Jann Horn

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=CANN689H9hXzaV0_vpFfrvjQD6xAEaPnjok_17zWGHumRNs-ZWg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=walken@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.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 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.