Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4516a349-49cb-fd7b-176a-f1a9479906d9@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 15:57:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: gup: fix the fast GUP race against THP collapse
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        peterx@redhat.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        hughd@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220901222707.477402-1-shy828301@gmail.com>
 <e6ad1084-c301-9f11-1fa7-7614bf859aaf@nvidia.com>
 <a969abc5-1ad0-4073-a1f9-82f0431a0104@redhat.com>
 <YxdPi2E63aO0Dgyd@nvidia.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <YxdPi2E63aO0Dgyd@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 06.09.22 15:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:59:47AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>>> That should be READ_ONCE() for the *pmdp and *ptep reads. Because this
>>> whole lockless house of cards may fall apart if we try reading the
>>> page table values without READ_ONCE().
>>
>> I came to the conclusion that the implicit memory barrier when grabbing a
>> reference on the page is sufficient such that we don't need READ_ONCE here.
> 
> READ_ONCE is not about barriers or ordering, you still need the
> acquire inside the atomic to make the algorithm work.


While I don't disagree with what say is, I'll refer to 
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt "COMPILER BARRIER".

As discussed somewhere in this thread, if we already have an atomic RWM 
that implies a full ordering, it implies a compile barrier.


> 
> READ_ONCE primarily is a marker that the data being read is unstable
> and that the compiler must avoid all instability when reading it. eg
> in this case the compiler could insanely double read the value, even
> though the 'if' requires only a single read. This would result in
> corrupt calculation.

As we have a full memory barrier + compile barrier, the compiler might 
indeed do double reads and all that stuff. BUT, it has to re-read after 
we incremented the refcount, and IMHO that's the important part to 
detect the change.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb