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
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpG6BBP+fjV9oyBx3SNiKhiafPzM9vV9bx_goO2aZzAptg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230708191212.4147700-1-surenb@google.com> <20230708191212.4147700-3-surenb@google.com>
 <20230804214620.btgwhsszsd7rh6nf@f> <CAHk-=wiy125k1dBmQFTGpHwiOqEyrD6xnd4xKWfe97H_HodgDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHFsAU_BDCOuz8UgDBLGEM8xg=aUGjaVoqkM_Zvxo2Re_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiG9xaVvBJXHqTxtop0=mW9KxPS9C54ED23p59VNEKdWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpGWGsh2BRgwcJ7oVHnqZfrtiesvhzomK0ZmxE_KK=R7FA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJuCfpG6BBP+fjV9oyBx3SNiKhiafPzM9vV9bx_goO2aZzAptg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Aug 2023 02:49:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGudoHFrDG6-u-XXEmQoPS2CJ2Wpo4ETwhXc2R=jy78RSYw-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fork: lock VMAs of the parent process when forking
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, regressions@leemhuis.info,
        bagasdotme@gmail.com, jacobly.alt@gmail.com, willy@infradead.org,
        liam.howlett@oracle.com, david@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On 8/5/23, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 5:26=E2=80=AFPM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.=
com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 5:15=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 16:25, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I know of these guys, I think they are excluded as is -- they go
>> > > through access_remote_vm, starting with:
>> > >         if (mmap_read_lock_killable(mm))
>> > >                 return 0;
>> > >
>> > > while dup_mmap already write locks the parent's mm.
>> >
>> > Oh, you're only worried about vma_start_write()?
>> >
>> > That's a non-issue. It doesn't take the lock normally, since it starts
>> > off with
>> >
>> >         if (__is_vma_write_locked(vma, &mm_lock_seq))
>> >                 return;
>> >
>> > which catches on the lock sequence number already being set.
>>
>> That check will prevent re-locking but if vma is not already locked
>> then the call will proceed with obtaining the lock and setting
>> vma->vm_lock_seq to mm->mm_lock_seq.
>
> The optimization Mateusz describes looks valid to me. If there is
> nobody else to fault a page and mm_users is stable (which I think it
> is because we are holding mmap_lock for write) then we can skip vma
> locking, I think.
>

mm_users is definitely *not* stable -- it can be bumped by
get_task_mm, which is only synchronized with task lock.

However, the other users (that I know of ) go through the mmap
semaphore to mess with anything which means they will wait for
dup_mmap to finish (or do their work first). I would be surprised if
there were any cases which don't take the semaphore, given that it was
a requirement prior to the vma patchset (unless you patched some to no
longer need it?). I would guess worst case the semaphore can be added
if missing.

What is guaranteed is that if the forking process is single-threaded,
there will be no threads added out of nowhere -- the only thread which
could do it is busy creating one in dup_mmap. If multithreaded
operation of the forking process was the only problem, that's it.

>>
>> >
>> > So no extra locking there.
>> >
>> > Well, technically there's extra locking because the code stupidly
>> > doesn't initialize new vma allocations to the right sequence number,
>> > but that was talked about here:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=3DwiCrWAoEesBuoGoqqufvesicbGp3cX0LyK=
gEvsFaZNpDA@mail.gmail.com/
>> >
>> > and it's a separate issue.
>> >
>> >           Linus
>


--=20
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>