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> <20230109205336.3665937-28-surenb@google.com>
 <CAG48ez3EAai=1ghnCMF6xcgUebQRm-u2xhwcpYsfP9=r=oVXig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3EAai=1ghnCMF6xcgUebQRm-u2xhwcpYsfP9=r=oVXig@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:40:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpETt1NHOhOzkP+pgUnNLNRq3LRRyadsc20pW+cCDLuyPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/41] mm/mmap: prevent pagefault handler from racing with
 mmu_notifier registration
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     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,
        willy@infradead.org, 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 Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:51 AM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > Page fault handlers might need to fire MMU notifications while a new
> > notifier is being registered. Modify mm_take_all_locks to write-lock all
> > VMAs and prevent this race with fault handlers that would hold VMA locks.
> > VMAs are locked before i_mmap_rwsem and anon_vma to keep the same
> > locking order as in page fault handlers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/mmap.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > index 30c7d1c5206e..a256deca0bc0 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -3566,6 +3566,7 @@ static void vm_lock_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, struct address_space *mapping)
> >   * of mm/rmap.c:
> >   *   - all hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key locks (aka mapping->i_mmap_rwsem for
> >   *     hugetlb mapping);
> > + *   - all vmas marked locked
>
> The existing comment above says that this is an *ordered* listing of
> which locks are taken.
>
> >   *   - all i_mmap_rwsem locks;
> >   *   - all anon_vma->rwseml
> >   *
> > @@ -3591,6 +3592,7 @@ int mm_take_all_locks(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >         mas_for_each(&mas, vma, ULONG_MAX) {
> >                 if (signal_pending(current))
> >                         goto out_unlock;
> > +               vma_write_lock(vma);
> >                 if (vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping &&
> >                                 is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> >                         vm_lock_mapping(mm, vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
>
> Note that multiple VMAs can have the same ->f_mapping, so with this,
> the lock ordering between VMA locks and the mapping locks of hugetlb
> VMAs is mixed: If you have two adjacent hugetlb VMAs with the same
> ->f_mapping, then the following operations happen:
>
> 1. lock VMA 1
> 2. lock mapping of VMAs 1 and 2
> 3. lock VMA 2
> 4. [second vm_lock_mapping() is a no-op]
>
> So for VMA 1, we ended up taking the VMA lock first, but for VMA 2, we
> took the mapping lock first.
>
> The existing code has one loop per lock type to ensure that the locks
> really are taken in the specified order, even when some of the locks
> are associated with multiple VMAs.
>
> If we don't care about the ordering between these two, maybe that's
> fine and you just have to adjust the comment; but it would be clearer
> to add a separate loop for the VMA locks.

Oh, thanks for pointing out this detail. A separate loop is definitely
needed here. Will do that in the next respin.

>
> > @@ -3677,6 +3679,7 @@ void mm_drop_all_locks(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >                 if (vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping)
> >                         vm_unlock_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
> >         }
> > +       vma_write_unlock_mm(mm);
> >
> >         mutex_unlock(&mm_all_locks_mutex);
> >  }
> > --
> > 2.39.0
> >