Re: [PATCH] mm: check the return value of lookup_page_ext for all call sites

["Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>]

On 6/1/2016 10:00 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:40:48PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 5/29/2016 11:11 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:16:41AM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we goes this way, how to guarantee this race?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing out this. It sounds reasonable. However, this
>>>> should be only possible to happen on 32 bit since just 32 bit
>>>> version page_is_idle() calls lookup_page_ext(), it doesn't do it on
>>>> 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> And, such race condition should exist regardless of whether DEBUG_VM
>>>> is enabled or not, right?
>>>>
>>>> rcu might be good enough to protect it.
>>>>
>>>> A quick fix may look like:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/page_idle.h b/include/linux/page_idle.h
>>>> index 8f5d4ad..bf0cd6a 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/page_idle.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/page_idle.h
>>>> @@ -77,8 +77,12 @@ static inline bool
>>>> test_and_clear_page_young(struct page *page)
>>>> static inline bool page_is_idle(struct page *page)
>>>> {
>>>>        struct page_ext *page_ext;
>>>> +
>>>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>>>>        page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
>>>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +
>>>> 	if (unlikely(!page_ext))
>>>>                return false;
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_ext.c b/mm/page_ext.c
>>>> index 56b160f..94927c9 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/page_ext.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/page_ext.c
>>>> @@ -183,7 +183,6 @@ struct page_ext *lookup_page_ext(struct page *page)
>>>> {
>>>>        unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>>>>        struct mem_section *section = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) || defined(CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING)
>>>>        /*
>>>>         * The sanity checks the page allocator does upon freeing a
>>>>         * page can reach here before the page_ext arrays are
>>>> @@ -195,7 +194,7 @@ struct page_ext *lookup_page_ext(struct page *page)
>>>>         */
>>>>        if (!section->page_ext)
>>>>                return NULL;
>>>> -#endif
>>>> +
>>>>        return section->page_ext + pfn;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -279,7 +278,8 @@ static void __free_page_ext(unsigned long pfn)
>>>>                return;
>>>>        base = ms->page_ext + pfn;
>>>>        free_page_ext(base);
>>>> -       ms->page_ext = NULL;
>>>> +       rcu_assign_pointer(ms->page_ext, NULL);
>>>> +       synchronize_rcu();
>>>
>>> How does it fix the problem?
>>> I cannot understand your point.
>>
>> Assigning NULL pointer to page_Ext will be blocked until
>> rcu_read_lock critical section is done, so the lookup and writing
>> operations will be serialized. And, rcu_read_lock disables preempt
>> too.
>
> I meant your rcu_read_lock in page_idle should cover test_bit op.

Yes, definitely. Thanks for catching it.

> One more thing, you should use rcu_dereference.

I will check which one is the best since I saw some use rcu_assign_pointer.

>
> As well, please cover memory onlining case I mentioned in another
> thread as well as memory offlining.

I will look into it too.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Anyway, to me, every caller of page_ext should prepare lookup_page_ext
> can return NULL anytime and they should use rcu_read_[un]lock, which
> is not good. :(
>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>