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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221021163703.3218176-1-jthoughton@google.com>
 <20221021163703.3218176-6-jthoughton@google.com> <Y3UY+XXXwnjDLMPl@x1n>
In-Reply-To: <Y3UY+XXXwnjDLMPl@x1n>
From:   James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:11:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CADrL8HXzV2fF3OHf3pk6EJn8Z0=b8NHpRCD9GBcw9y1UTc5goA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/47] hugetlb: make hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc return
 its failure reason
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
        "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>,
        Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@nutanix.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:08 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> No objection on the patch itself, but I am just wondering what guarantees
> thread-safety for this function to not leak vm_private_data when two
> threads try to allocate at the same time.
>
> I think it should be the write mmap lock.  I saw that in your latest code
> base there's:
>
>         /*
>          * We must hold the mmap lock for writing so that callers can rely on
>          * hugetlb_hgm_enabled returning a consistent result while holding
>          * the mmap lock for reading.
>          */
>         mmap_assert_write_locked(vma->vm_mm);
>
>         /* HugeTLB HGM requires the VMA lock to synchronize collapsing. */
>         ret = hugetlb_vma_data_alloc(vma);
>         if (ret)
>                 return ret;
>
> So that's covered there.  The rest places are hugetlb_vm_op_open() and
> hugetlb_reserve_pages() and they all seem fine too: hugetlb_vm_op_open() is
> during mmap(), the latter has vma==NULL so allocation will be skipped.
>
> I'm wondering whether it would make sense to move this assert to be inside
> of hugetlb_vma_data_alloc() after the !vma check, or just add the same
> assert too but for different reason.

I think leaving the assert here and adding a new assert inside
hugetlb_vma_data_alloc() makes sense. Thanks Peter.

- James

>
> >
> >       vma_lock = kmalloc(sizeof(*vma_lock), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!vma_lock) {
> > @@ -7026,13 +7026,14 @@ static void hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >                * allocation failure.
> >                */
> >               pr_warn_once("HugeTLB: unable to allocate vma specific lock\n");
> > -             return;
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> >       }
> >
> >       kref_init(&vma_lock->refs);
> >       init_rwsem(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
> >       vma_lock->vma = vma;
> >       vma->vm_private_data = vma_lock;
> > +     return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > @@ -7160,8 +7161,9 @@ static void hugetlb_vma_lock_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >  {
> >  }
> >
> > -static void hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +static int hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >  {
> > +     return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > --
> > 2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog
> >
> >
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>