Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-195170-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240530025144.1570865-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> <CANzGp4+HJE_h+kBsx9cJzKxJRi3u_y204-numUgzYgJBo2AJfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANzGp4+HJE_h+kBsx9cJzKxJRi3u_y204-numUgzYgJBo2AJfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 17:25:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznFdsxQRUd-fs82ZYveu8idJ7mDPw2LVty8qPOu=dn0rng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented_block
To: Chuanhua Han <chuanhuahan@gmail.com>
Cc: "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steve.kang@unisoc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:16=E2=80=AFPM Chuanhua Han <chuanhuahan@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> zhaoyang.huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=
=8830=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E5=9B=9B 10:52=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> >
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> >
> > Broken vbq->free reported on a v6.6 based system which is caused
> > by invalid vbq->lock protect over vbq->free in purge_fragmented_block.
> > This should be introduced by the Fixes below which ignored vbq->lock
> > matter.
> >
> > Fixes: fc1e0d980037 ("mm/vmalloc: prevent stale TLBs in fully utilized =
blocks")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmalloc.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index 22aa63f4ef63..112b50431725 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -2614,9 +2614,10 @@ static void free_vmap_block(struct vmap_block *v=
b)
> >  }
> >
> >  static bool purge_fragmented_block(struct vmap_block *vb,
> > -               struct vmap_block_queue *vbq, struct list_head *purge_l=
ist,
> > -               bool force_purge)
> > +               struct list_head *purge_list, bool force_purge)
> >  {
> > +       struct vmap_block_queue *vbq;
> > +
> >         if (vb->free + vb->dirty !=3D VMAP_BBMAP_BITS ||
> >             vb->dirty =3D=3D VMAP_BBMAP_BITS)
> >                 return false;
> > @@ -2625,6 +2626,8 @@ static bool purge_fragmented_block(struct vmap_bl=
ock *vb,
> >         if (!(force_purge || vb->free < VMAP_PURGE_THRESHOLD))
> >                 return false;
> >
> > +       vbq =3D container_of(addr_to_vb_xa(vb->va->va_start),
> > +               struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_blocks);
> This seems to be the same as before fix :),  the vbq found by
> addr_to_vb_xa is still added to the xarray vbq, not necessarily to the
> free_list vbq,
Yes, my fault. Should we expand the vmap_block_queue by introducing a
cpu_id which I actually do in my local regression.

> These two vbqs may not be the same, we need to find the vbq when added
> to free_list.
>
> For example:
> We add vb to vbq1's xarray and vbq2's free_list, and we need to find
> vbq2 instead of vbq1.
> So I feel like this place isn't really fixed=EF=BC=9F
> >         /* prevent further allocs after releasing lock */
> >         WRITE_ONCE(vb->free, 0);
> >         /* prevent purging it again */
> > @@ -2664,7 +2667,7 @@ static void purge_fragmented_blocks(int cpu)
> >                         continue;
> >
> >                 spin_lock(&vb->lock);
> > -               purge_fragmented_block(vb, vbq, &purge, true);
> > +               purge_fragmented_block(vb, &purge, true);
> >                 spin_unlock(&vb->lock);
> >         }
> >         rcu_read_unlock();
> > @@ -2801,7 +2804,7 @@ static void _vm_unmap_aliases(unsigned long start=
, unsigned long end, int flush)
> >                          * not purgeable, check whether there is dirty
> >                          * space to be flushed.
> >                          */
> > -                       if (!purge_fragmented_block(vb, vbq, &purge_lis=
t, false) &&
> > +                       if (!purge_fragmented_block(vb, &purge_list, fa=
lse) &&
> >                             vb->dirty_max && vb->dirty !=3D VMAP_BBMAP_=
BITS) {
> >                                 unsigned long va_start =3D vb->va->va_s=
tart;
> >                                 unsigned long s, e;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Chuanhua