Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 07:56:36 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@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, paulmck@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        will@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, chriscli@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        rppt@kernel.org, jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        tatashin@google.com, edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com,
        gurua@google.com, arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com,
        leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com,
        michalechner92@googlemail.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/33] mm: write-lock VMAs before removing them from
 VMA tree
Message-ID: <Y/8FNM9czzPHb5eG@localhost>
References: <20230227173632.3292573-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230227173632.3292573-19-surenb@google.com>
 <Y/8CJQGNuMUTdLwP@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/8CJQGNuMUTdLwP@localhost>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:43:33AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:36:17AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Write-locking VMAs before isolating them ensures that page fault
> > handlers don't operate on isolated VMAs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/mmap.c  | 1 +
> >  mm/nommu.c | 5 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > index 1f42b9a52b9b..f7ed357056c4 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -2255,6 +2255,7 @@ int split_vma(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  static inline int munmap_sidetree(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  				   struct ma_state *mas_detach)
> >  {
> > +	vma_start_write(vma);
> >  	mas_set_range(mas_detach, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end - 1);
> 
> I may be missing something, but have few questions:
> 
> 	1) Why does a writer need to both write-lock a VMA and mark the VMA detached
> 	   when unmapping it, isn't it enough to just only write-lock a VMA?
> 
> 	2) as VMAs that are going to be removed are already locked in vma_prepare(),
> 	   so I think this hunk could be dropped?

After sending this just realized that I did not consider simple munmap case :)
But I still think 1) and 3) are valid question.

> 
> >  	if (mas_store_gfp(mas_detach, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > diff --git a/mm/nommu.c b/mm/nommu.c
> > index 57ba243c6a37..2ab162d773e2 100644
> > --- a/mm/nommu.c
> > +++ b/mm/nommu.c
> > @@ -588,6 +588,7 @@ static int delete_vma_from_mm(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >  		       current->pid);
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> > +	vma_start_write(vma);
> >  	cleanup_vma_from_mm(vma);
> 
> 	3) I think this hunk could be dropped as Per-VMA lock depends on MMU anyway.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hyeonggon
> 
> >  
> >  	/* remove from the MM's tree and list */
> > @@ -1519,6 +1520,10 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  	 */
> >  	mmap_write_lock(mm);
> >  	for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * No need to lock VMA because this is the only mm user and no
> > +		 * page fault handled can race with it.
> > +		 */
> >  		cleanup_vma_from_mm(vma);
> >  		delete_vma(mm, vma);
> >  		cond_resched();
> > -- 
> > 2.39.2.722.g9855ee24e9-goog
> > 
> > 
>