From: Mike Kravetz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Muchun Song <email@example.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <email@example.com>,
LKML <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jann Horn <email@example.com>,
Youquan Song <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <email@example.com>, Jan Kara <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
John Hubbard <email@example.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>,
Michal Hocko <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrew Morton <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: address ref count racing in prep_compound_gigantic_page
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:26:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 6/23/21 1:00 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:15 AM Mike Kravetz <email@example.com> wrote:
>> In , Jann Horn points out a possible race between
>> prep_compound_gigantic_page and __page_cache_add_speculative. The
>> root cause of the possible race is prep_compound_gigantic_page
>> uncondittionally setting the ref count of pages to zero. It does this
>> because prep_compound_gigantic_page is handed a 'group' of pages from an
>> allocator and needs to convert that group of pages to a compound page.
>> The ref count of each page in this 'group' is one as set by the
>> allocator. However, the ref count of compound page tail pages must be
>> The potential race comes about when ref counted pages are returned from
>> the allocator. When this happens, other mm code could also take a
>> reference on the page. __page_cache_add_speculative is one such
>> example. Therefore, prep_compound_gigantic_page can not just set the
>> ref count of pages to zero as it does today. Doing so would lose the
>> reference taken by any other code. This would lead to BUGs in code
>> checking ref counts and could possibly even lead to memory corruption.
> Hi Mike,
> Well. It takes me some time to get the race. It also makes me think more
> about this. See the below code snippet in gather_surplus_pages().
> zeroed = put_page_testzero(page);
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!zeroed, page);
> enqueue_huge_page(h, page);
> The VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() can be triggered because of the similar
> race, right? IIUC, we also should fix this.
Thanks for taking a look at this Muchun.
I believe you are correct. Page allocators (even buddy) will hand back
a ref counted head page. Any other code 'could' take a reference on the
head page before the pages are made into a hugetlb page. Once the pages
becomes a hugetlb page (PageHuge() true), then only hugetlb specific
code should be modifying the ref count. So, it seems the 'race window'
is from the time the pages are returned from a low level allocator until
the time the pages become a hugetlb page. Does that sound correct?
If we want to check for and handle such a race, we would need to do so
in prep_new_huge_page. After setting the descructor we would need to
check for an increased ref count (> 1). Not sure if we would need a
memory barrier or some other type synchronization for this? This of
course means that prep_new_huge_page could return an error, and we would
need to deal with that in all callers.
I went back and looked at those lines in gather_surplus_pages
zeroed = put_page_testzero(page);
They were first added as part of alloc_buddy_huge_page with commit
2668db9111bb - hugetlb: correct page count for surplus huge pages.
It appears the reason for the VM_BUG_ON is because prior hugetlb code
forgot to account for the ref count provided by the buddy allocator.
The VM_BUG_ON may have been added mostly as a sanity check for hugetlb
ref count management.
I wonder if we have ever hit that VM_BUG_ON in the 13 years it has been
in the code? I know you recently spotted the potential race with memory
error handling and Naoya fixed up the memory error code.
I'm OK with modifying prep_new_huge_page, but it is going to be a bit
messy (like this patch). I wonder if there are other less intrusive
ways to address this potential issue?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-24 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-22 2:14 [PATCH 0/2] Fix prep_compound_gigantic_page ref count adjustment Mike Kravetz
2021-06-22 2:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] hugetlb: remove prep_compound_huge_page cleanup Mike Kravetz
2021-06-22 9:09 ` [External] " Muchun Song
2021-06-22 2:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: address ref count racing in prep_compound_gigantic_page Mike Kravetz
2021-06-23 8:00 ` [External] " Muchun Song
2021-06-24 0:26 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2021-06-24 3:38 ` Muchun Song
2021-06-22 2:16 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fix prep_compound_gigantic_page ref count adjustment Mike Kravetz
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).