From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: move resv_map to hugetlbfs_inode_info
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:50:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190416065058.GB11561@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f063c3e7-1b37-7592-14c2-78b494dbd825@oracle.com>
On Mon 15-04-19 10:11:39, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 4/15/19 2:15 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 15-04-19 06:16:15, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:40:01PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/19 9:02 PM, Yufen Yu wrote:
> >>>> Commit 58b6e5e8f1ad ("hugetlbfs: fix memory leak for resv_map")
> >>> ...
> >>>> However, for inode mode that is 'S_ISBLK', hugetlbfs_evict_inode() may
> >>>> free or modify i_mapping->private_data that is owned by bdev inode,
> >>>> which is not expected!
> >>> ...
> >>>> We fix the problem by moving resv_map to hugetlbfs_inode_info. It may
> >>>> be more reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> Your patches force me to consider these potential issues. Thank you!
> >>>
> >>> The root of all these problems (including the original leak) is that the
> >>> open of a block special inode will result in bd_acquire() overwriting the
> >>> value of inode->i_mapping. Since hugetlbfs inodes normally contain a
> >>> resv_map at inode->i_mapping->private_data, a memory leak occurs if we do
> >>> not free the initially allocated resv_map. In addition, when the
> >>> inode is evicted/destroyed inode->i_mapping may point to an address space
> >>> not associated with the hugetlbfs inode. If code assumes inode->i_mapping
> >>> points to hugetlbfs inode address space at evict time, there may be bad
> >>> data references or worse.
> >>
> >> Let me ask a kind of elementary question: is there any good reason/purpose
> >> to create and use block special files on hugetlbfs? I never heard about
> >> such usecases.
>
> I am not aware of this as a common use case. Yufen Yu may be able to provide
> more details about how the issue was discovered. My guess is that it was
> discovered via code inspection.
>
> >> I guess that the conflict of the usage of ->i_mapping is
> >> discovered recently and that's because block special files on hugetlbfs are
> >> just not considered until recently or well defined. So I think that we might
> >> be better to begin with defining it first.
>
> Unless I am mistaken, this is just like creating a device special file
> in any other filesystem. Correct? hugetlbfs is just some place for the
> inode/file to reside. What happens when you open/ioctl/close/etc the file
> is really dependent on the vfs layer and underlying driver.
>
> > A absolutely agree. Hugetlbfs is overly complicated even without that.
> > So if this is merely "we have tried it and it has blown up" kinda thing
> > then just refuse the create blockdev files or document it as undefined.
> > You need a root to do so anyway.
>
> Can we just refuse to create device special files in hugetlbfs? Do we need
> to worry about breaking any potential users? I honestly do not know if anyone
> does this today. However, if they did I believe things would "just work".
But why would anybody do something like that? Is there any actual
semantical advantage to create device files on hugetlbfs? I would be
worried that some confused application might expect e.g. hugetlb backed
pagecache for a block device or something like that. I wouldn't be too
worried to outright disallow this and only allow on an explicit and
reasonable usecase.
> The only known issue is leaking a resv_map structure when the inode is
> destroyed. I doubt anyone would notice that leak today.
>
> Let me do a little more research. I think this can all be cleaned up by
> making hugetlbfs always operate on the address space embedded in the inode.
> If nothing else, a change or explanation should be added as to why most code
> operates on inode->mapping and one place operates on &inode->i_data.
Yes, that makes sense.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-16 6:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-12 4:02 [PATCH] hugetlbfs: move resv_map to hugetlbfs_inode_info Yufen Yu
2019-04-12 23:40 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-04-13 11:57 ` yuyufen
2019-04-15 6:16 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2019-04-15 9:15 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-15 17:11 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-04-15 23:59 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2019-04-16 0:37 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-04-16 6:50 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-04-19 20:44 ` [PATCH] hugetlbfs: always use address space in inode for resv_map pointer Mike Kravetz
2019-05-08 7:10 ` yuyufen
2019-05-08 20:16 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-05-09 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2019-05-09 23:32 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-04-16 12:57 ` [PATCH] hugetlbfs: move resv_map to hugetlbfs_inode_info yuyufen
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=20190416065058.GB11561@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=yuyufen@huawei.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).