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: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-42-surenb@google.com>
 <CAG48ez3ZNt+B3XvAMP1OaeEYuwpXJ1epmT9YtNonFLEJ6yANVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpFruHecz9NssGGFrG-RqbJFHCfRuZ7c6GbTBD4x4AU8aA@mail.gmail.com> <Y8bpfzYvWq/3ttr+@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y8bpfzYvWq/3ttr+@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:36:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0ScQMc_5Ch-d63pX4vT6L7=peQjnpneooGcXfyddXc8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        michel@lespinasse.org, jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        dave@stgolabs.net, liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com, edumazet@google.com,
        gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com, arjunroy@google.com,
        soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com, leewalsh@google.com,
        posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:31 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:26:32AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:12 AM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:55 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > > > rw_semaphore is a sizable structure of 40 bytes and consumes
> > > > considerable space for each vm_area_struct. However vma_lock has
> > > > two important specifics which can be used to replace rw_semaphore
> > > > with a simpler structure:
> > > [...]
> > > >  static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> > > > +       if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> > > > +               wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > I haven't properly reviewed this, but this bit looks like a
> > > use-after-free because you're accessing the vma after dropping your
> > > reference on it. You'd have to first look up the vma->vm_mm, then do
> > > the atomic_dec_and_test(), and afterwards do the wake_up() without
> > > touching the vma. Or alternatively wrap the whole thing in an RCU
> > > read-side critical section if the VMA is freed with RCU delay.
> >
> > vm_lock->count does not control the lifetime of the VMA, it's a
> > counter of how many readers took the lock or it's negative if the lock
> > is write-locked.
>
> Yes, but ...
>
>         Task A:
>         atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count)
>                         Task B:
>                         munmap()
>                         write lock
>                         free VMA
>                         synchronize_rcu()
>                         VMA is really freed
>         wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
>
> ... vma is freed.
>
> Now, I think this doesn't occur.  I'm pretty sure that every caller of
> vma_read_unlock() is holding the RCU read lock.  But maybe we should
> have that assertion?

I don't see that. When do_user_addr_fault() is calling
vma_read_unlock(), there's no RCU read lock held, right?