Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,  linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	selinux@vger.kernel.org,  kernel-team@android.com,
	aarcange@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com,  david@redhat.com,
	axelrasmussen@google.com, bgeffon@google.com,
	 willy@infradead.org, jannh@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com,
	 ngeoffray@google.com, timmurray@google.com, rppt@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:25:26 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFXWJovv6G4ou2nK2W1D2-JGb5Hw8m77-pOq4Rh24-q9A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+EESO5URPpJj35-jQy+Lrp1EtKms8r1ri2ZY3ZOpsSJU+CScw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:14 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:06 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> [240213 06:25]:
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:33 PM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> [240212 19:19]:
> > > > > All userfaultfd operations, except write-protect, opportunistically use
> > > > > per-vma locks to lock vmas. On failure, attempt again inside mmap_lock
> > > > > critical section.
> > > > >
> > > > > Write-protect operation requires mmap_lock as it iterates over multiple
> > > > > vmas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/userfaultfd.c              |  13 +-
> > > > >  include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h |   5 +-
> > > > >  mm/userfaultfd.c              | 392 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > >  3 files changed, 312 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> >
> > I just remembered an issue with the mmap tree that exists today that you
> > needs to be accounted for in this change.
> >
> > If you hit a NULL VMA, you need to fall back to the mmap_lock() scenario
> > today.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, isn't that already handled in the patch?
> We get the VMA outside mmap_lock critical section only via
> lock_vma_under_rcu() (in lock_vma() and find_and_lock_vmas()) and in
> both cases if we get NULL in return, we retry in mmap_lock critical
> section with vma_lookup(). Wouldn't that suffice?

I think that case is handled correctly by lock_vma().

Sorry for coming back a bit late. The overall patch looks quite good
but the all these #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK seem unnecessary to me.
Why find_and_lock_vmas() and lock_mm_and_find_vmas() be called the
same name (find_and_lock_vmas()) and in one case it would lock only
the VMA and in the other case it takes mmap_lock? Similarly
unlock_vma() would in one case unlock the VMA and in the other drop
the mmap_lock? That would remove all these #ifdefs from the code.
Maybe this was already discussed?

> >
> > This is a necessity to avoid a race of removal/replacement of a VMA in
> > the mmap(MAP_FIXED) case.  In this case, we munmap() prior to mmap()'ing
> > an area - which means you could see a NULL when there never should have
> > been a null.
> >
> > Although this would be exceedingly rare, you need to handle this case.
> >
> > Sorry I missed this earlier,
> > Liam