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 56A5BC76190 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF10216F4 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390092AbfGYDpC (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59168 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389704AbfGYDpC (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:45:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14BF30C62A0; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:00 +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 40D9B60603; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:44:42 +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: <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> <3dfa2269-60ba-7dd8-99af-5aef8552bd98@redhat.com> <20190724142533-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:44:27 +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: <20190724142533-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 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On 2019/7/25 上午2:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:08:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> 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 > OK I think you are right. Sorry it took me a while to figure out. No problem. So do you want me to send a V2 of the fixes (e.g with the conversion from synchronize_rcu() to kfree_rcu()). Or you want something else. (e.g revert or a config option)? Thanks