Message-ID: <1502804197.2047.53.camel@codethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 18/58] mm, mprotect: flush TLB if potentially racing
 with a parallel reclaim leaving stale TLB entries
From: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:36:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <B1F6A370-1AA6-43CE-8284-42B326846EA5@gmail.com>
References: <20170809194146.501519882@linuxfoundation.org>
         <20170809194147.234463750@linuxfoundation.org>
         <1502473549.2047.36.camel@codethink.co.uk>
         <B1F6A370-1AA6-43CE-8284-42B326846EA5@gmail.com>
Organization: Codethink Ltd.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2406
Lines: 58

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 23:27 -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 12:41 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> 
> >> ------------------
> >> 
> >> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> >> 
> >> commit 3ea277194daaeaa84ce75180ec7c7a2075027a68 upstream.
> > [...]
> >> +/*
> >> + * Reclaim unmaps pages under the PTL but do not flush the TLB prior to
> >> + * releasing the PTL if TLB flushes are batched. It's possible for a parallel
> >> + * operation such as mprotect or munmap to race between reclaim unmapping
> >> + * the page and flushing the page. If this race occurs, it potentially allows
> >> + * access to data via a stale TLB entry. Tracking all mm's that have TLB
> >> + * batching in flight would be expensive during reclaim so instead track
> >> + * whether TLB batching occurred in the past and if so then do a flush here
> >> + * if required. This will cost one additional flush per reclaim cycle paid
> >> + * by the first operation at risk such as mprotect and mumap.
> >> + *
> >> + * This must be called under the PTL so that an access to tlb_flush_batched
> >> + * that is potentially a "reclaim vs mprotect/munmap/etc" race will synchronise
> >> + * via the PTL.
> > 
> > What about USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS?  I don't see how you can use "the PTL"
> > to synchronise access to a per-mm flag.
> 
> Although it is a per-mm flag, the only situations we care about it are those
> in which “the PTL” (i.e. the same PTL) is accessed by both the reclaimer
> (which batches the flushes) and mprotect/munmap/etc.

Is there anything that presents this sequence?

P0                              P1                             P2
--                              --                             --

change_pte_range() [ptl=X]
-> flush_tlb_batch_pending()
   -> flush_tlb_mm()
                                try_to_unmap_one() [ptl=Y]
                                -> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending()
                                   -> tlb_flush_batched = true
   -> tlb_flush_batched = false

change_pte_range() [ptl=Y]
                                                               ->
flush_tlb_batch_pending()
                                                                  (nop)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.