Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 2/2] mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem for large mapping

[Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 6/28/18 12:10 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 6/28/18 4:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 27-06-18 10:23:39, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/27/18 12:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Tue 26-06-18 18:03:34, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/18 12:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:06:23PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>>>> By looking this deeper, we may not be able to cover all the 
>>>>>>> unmapping range
>>>>>>> for VM_DEAD, for example, if the start addr is in the middle of 
>>>>>>> a vma. We
>>>>>>> can't set VM_DEAD to that vma since that would trigger SIGSEGV 
>>>>>>> for still
>>>>>>> mapped area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> splitting can't be done with read mmap_sem held, so maybe just 
>>>>>>> set VM_DEAD
>>>>>>> to non-overlapped vmas. Access to overlapped vmas (first and 
>>>>>>> last) will
>>>>>>> still have undefined behavior.
>>>>>> Acquire mmap_sem for writing, split, mark VM_DEAD, drop mmap_sem. 
>>>>>> Acquire
>>>>>> mmap_sem for reading, madv_free drop mmap_sem. Acquire mmap_sem for
>>>>>> writing, free everything left, drop mmap_sem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, you acquire the lock 3 times, but both write instances 
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> 'short', and I suppose you can do a demote between 1 and 2 if you 
>>>>>> care.
>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Yes, by looking the code and trying two different 
>>>>> approaches,
>>>>> it looks this approach is the most straight-forward one.
>>>> Yes, you just have to be careful about the max vma count limit.
>>> Yes, we should just need copy what do_munmap does as below:
>>>
>>> if (end < vma->vm_end && mm->map_count >= sysctl_max_map_count)
>>>              return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> If the mas map count limit has been reached, it will return failure 
>>> before
>>> zapping mappings.
>> Yeah, but as soon as you drop the lock and retake it, somebody might
>> have changed the adddress space and we might get inconsistency.
>>
>> So I am wondering whether we really need upgrade_read (to promote read
>> to write lock) and do the
>>     down_write
>>     split & set up VM_DEAD
>>     downgrade_write
>>     unmap
>>     upgrade_read
>>     zap ptes
>>     up_write

Promoting to write lock may be a trouble. There might be other users in 
the critical section with read lock, we have to wait them to finish.

>
> I'm supposed address space changing just can be done by mmap, mremap, 
> mprotect. If so, we may utilize the new VM_DEAD flag. If the VM_DEAD 
> flag is set for the vma, just return failure since it is being unmapped.
>
> Does it sounds reasonable?

It looks we just need care about MAP_FIXED (mmap) and MREMAP_FIXED 
(mremap), right?

How about letting them return -EBUSY or -EAGAIN to notify the 
application? This changes the behavior a little bit, MAP_FIXED and 
mremap may fail if they fail the race with munmap (if the mapping is 
larger than 1GB). I'm not sure if any multi-threaded application uses 
MAP_FIXED and MREMAP_FIXED very heavily which may run into the race 
condition. I guess it should be rare to meet all the conditions to 
trigger the race.

The programmer should be very cautious about MAP_FIXED.MREMAP_FIXED 
since they may corrupt its own address space as the man page noted.


Thanks,
Yang

>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
>>
>> looks terrible, no question about that, but we won't drop the mmap sem
>> at any time.
>