Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <99b67e2408c260f53958e98226449fd2bb6a58d8.camel@surriel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hugetlbfs: close race between MADV_DONTNEED and
 page fault
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, leit@meta.com, willy@infradead.org,
        stable@kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 05 Oct 2023 09:23:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20231005031959.GA13437@monkey>
References: <20231004032814.3108383-1-riel@surriel.com>
         <20231004032814.3108383-3-riel@surriel.com> <20231005031959.GA13437@monkey>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: riel@surriel.com
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 20:19 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/03/23 23:25, riel@surriel.com wrote:
> > 
> > @@ -5457,11 +5460,12 @@ void __unmap_hugepage_range_final(struct
> > mmu_gather *tlb,
> >                  * someone else.
> >                  */
> >                 __hugetlb_vma_unlock_write_free(vma);
> > -               i_mmap_unlock_write(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
> >         } else {
> > -               i_mmap_unlock_write(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
> >                 hugetlb_vma_unlock_write(vma);
> >         }
> > +
> > +       if (vma->vm_file)
> > +               i_mmap_unlock_write(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
> >  }
> 
> In the case of a mmap(hugetlbfs_file_mmap) error, the per-vma hugetlb
> lock will not be setup.  The hugetlb_vma_lock/unlock routines do not
> check for this as they were previously always called after the lock
> was
> set up.  So, we can now get:

Wait, the hugetlb_vma_(un)lock_{read,write} functions do
have checks for the presence of the lock:

void hugetlb_vma_lock_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
        if (__vma_shareable_lock(vma)) {
                struct hugetlb_vma_lock *vma_lock = vma-
>vm_private_data;

                down_read(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
        } else if (__vma_private_lock(vma)) {
                struct resv_map *resv_map = vma_resv_map(vma);

                down_read(&resv_map->rw_sema);
        }
}

Both __vma_shareable_lock and __vma_private_lock check that
vma->vm_private_data points at something.

Exactly what corner case am I missing here?

What leaves vma->vm_private_data pointing at something
invalid?

> 
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -5503,10 +5503,12 @@ void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather
> *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  void __hugetlb_zap_begin(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>                          unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end)
>  {
> +       if (!vma->vm_file)      /* hugetlbfs_file_mmap error */
> +               return;
> +

This does not seem quite correct, because the locking is needed to
avoid the race between MADV_DONTNEED and the page fault path.


> Another way to resolve would be to fix up the hugetlb_vma_lock/unlock
> routines
> to check for and handle a null lock.

I thought I had that already. 

Does __vma_shareable_lock need to check for !vma->vm_file ?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.