On 03/19/2014 10:38 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 03/12/2014 06:36 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> Andrew, this should go with the patches
>>> mmnuma-reorganize-change_pmd_range.patch
>>> mmnuma-reorganize-change_pmd_range-fix.patch
>>> move-mmu-notifier-call-from-change_protection-to-change_pmd_range.patch
>>> in mmotm please.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> ---8<---
>>> From: Mel Gorman<mgor...@suse.de>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] mm: numa: Recheck for transhuge pages under lock during
>>> protection changes
>>>
>>> Sasha Levin reported the following bug using trinity
>>
>> I'm seeing a different issue with this patch. A NULL ptr deref occurs in the
>> pte_offset_map_lock() macro right before the new recheck code:
>>
>
> This on top?
>
> I tried testing it but got all sorts of carnage that trinity throw up
> in the mix and ordinary testing does not trigger the race. I've no idea
> which of the current mess of trinity-exposed bugs you've encountered and
> got fixed already.
Eeeep indeed. If we re-test the transhuge status, we need to
take the pmd lock, and not the potentially non-existent pte
lock.
Good catch.
> ---8<---
> From: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: numa: Recheck for transhuge pages under lock during
> protection changes -fix
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> ---
> mm/mprotect.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index 66973db..c43d557 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -36,6 +36,34 @@ static inline pgprot_t pgprot_modify(pgprot_t oldprot,
> pgprot_t newprot)
> }
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * For a prot_numa update we only hold mmap_sem for read so there is a
> + * potential race with faulting where a pmd was temporarily none. This
> + * function checks for a transhuge pmd under the appropriate lock. It
> + * returns a pte if it was successfully locked or NULL if it raced with
> + * a transhuge insertion.
> + */
> +static pte_t *lock_pte_protection(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> + unsigned long addr, int prot_numa, spinlock_t **ptl)
> +{
> + pte_t *pte;
> + spinlock_t *pmdl;
> +
> + /* !prot_numa is protected by mmap_sem held for write */
> + if (!prot_numa)
> + return pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, ptl);
> +
> + pmdl = pmd_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd);
> + if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd) || pmd_none(*pmd))) {
> + spin_unlock(pmdl);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, ptl);
> + spin_unlock(pmdl);
> + return pte;
> +}
> +
> static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, pgprot_t newprot,
> int dirty_accountable, int prot_numa)
> @@ -45,17 +73,9 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct
> vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> spinlock_t *ptl;
> unsigned long pages = 0;
>
> - pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> -
> - /*
> - * For a prot_numa update we only hold mmap_sem for read so there is a
> - * potential race with faulting where a pmd was temporarily none so
> - * recheck it under the lock and bail if we race
> - */
> - if (prot_numa && unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))) {
> - pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> + pte = lock_pte_protection(vma, pmd, addr, prot_numa, &ptl);
> + if (!pte)
> return 0;
> - }
>
> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> do {
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"d...@kvack.org";> em...@kvack.org </a>
>
--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
