From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83A1C7618B for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7201218B8 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726675AbfGXKI1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 06:08:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59610 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726070AbfGXKI1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 06:08:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15AD230ADC87; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.18] (ovpn-12-18.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7395F19C70; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: syzbot , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org References: <20190722035657-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190723010156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <124be1a2-1c53-8e65-0f06-ee2294710822@redhat.com> <20190723032800-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190723062221-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <9baa4214-67fd-7ad2-cbad-aadf90bbfc20@redhat.com> <20190723110219-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190724040238-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <3dfa2269-60ba-7dd8-99af-5aef8552bd98@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:08:05 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190724040238-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On 2019/7/24 下午4:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2019/7/23 下午11:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:34:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2019/7/23 下午6:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>> Yes, since there could be multiple co-current invalidation requests. We need >>>>>> count them to make sure we don't pin wrong pages. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I also wonder about ordering. kvm has this: >>>>>>> /* >>>>>>> * Used to check for invalidations in progress, of the pfn that is >>>>>>> * returned by pfn_to_pfn_prot below. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> mmu_seq = kvm->mmu_notifier_seq; >>>>>>> /* >>>>>>> * Ensure the read of mmu_notifier_seq isn't reordered with PTE reads in >>>>>>> * gfn_to_pfn_prot() (which calls get_user_pages()), so that we don't >>>>>>> * risk the page we get a reference to getting unmapped before we have a >>>>>>> * chance to grab the mmu_lock without mmu_notifier_retry() noticing. >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> * This smp_rmb() pairs with the effective smp_wmb() of the combination >>>>>>> * of the pte_unmap_unlock() after the PTE is zapped, and the >>>>>>> * spin_lock() in kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_() before >>>>>>> * mmu_notifier_seq is incremented. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> smp_rmb(); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> does this apply to us? Can't we use a seqlock instead so we do >>>>>>> not need to worry? >>>>>> I'm not familiar with kvm MMU internals, but we do everything under of >>>>>> mmu_lock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> I don't think this helps at all. >>>>> >>>>> There's no lock between checking the invalidate counter and >>>>> get user pages fast within vhost_map_prefetch. So it's possible >>>>> that get user pages fast reads PTEs speculatively before >>>>> invalidate is read. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> In vhost_map_prefetch() we do: >>>> >>>>         spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>> >>>>         ... >>>> >>>>         err = -EFAULT; >>>>         if (vq->invalidate_count) >>>>                 goto err; >>>> >>>>         ... >>>> >>>>         npinned = __get_user_pages_fast(uaddr->uaddr, npages, >>>>                                         uaddr->write, pages); >>>> >>>>         ... >>>> >>>>         spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock); >>>> >>>> Is this not sufficient? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> So what orders __get_user_pages_fast wrt invalidate_count read? >> >> So in invalidate_end() callback we have: >> >> spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock); >> --vq->invalidate_count; >>         spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock); >> >> >> So even PTE is read speculatively before reading invalidate_count (only in >> the case of invalidate_count is zero). The spinlock has guaranteed that we >> won't read any stale PTEs. >> >> Thanks > I'm sorry I just do not get the argument. > If you want to order two reads you need an smp_rmb > or stronger between them executed on the same CPU. > > Executing any kind of barrier on another CPU > will have no ordering effect on the 1st one. > > > So if CPU1 runs the prefetch, and CPU2 runs invalidate > callback, read of invalidate counter on CPU1 can bypass > read of PTE on CPU1 unless there's a barrier > in between, and nothing CPU2 does can affect that outcome. > > > What did I miss? It doesn't harm if PTE is read before invalidate_count, this is because: 1) This speculation is serialized with invalidate_range_end() because of the spinlock 2) This speculation can only make effect when we read invalidate_count as zero. 3) This means the speculation is done after the last invalidate_range_end() and because of the spinlock, when we enter the critical section of spinlock in prefetch, we can not see any stale PTE that was unmapped before. Am I wrong? Thanks