On 2/21/20 7:33 PM, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
> From: Longpeng <longpeng2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Our machine encountered a panic(addressing exception) after run
> for a long time and the calltrace is:
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff9dff0587>] [<ffffffff9dff0587>] hugetlb_fault+0x307/0xbe0
> RSP: 0018:ffff9567fc27f808 EFLAGS: 00010286
> RAX: e800c03ff1258d48 RBX: ffffd3bb003b69c0 RCX: e800c03ff1258d48
> RDX: 17ff3fc00eda72b7 RSI: 00003ffffffff000 RDI: e800c03ff1258d48
> RBP: ffff9567fc27f8c8 R08: e800c03ff1258d48 R09: 0000000000000080
> R10: ffffaba0704c22a8 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff95c87b4b60d8
> R13: 00005fff00000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff9567face8074
> FS: 00007fe2d9ffb700(0000) GS:ffff956900e40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: ffffd3bb003b69c0 CR3: 000000be67374000 CR4: 00000000003627e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff9df9b71b>] ? unlock_page+0x2b/0x30
> [<ffffffff9dff04a2>] ? hugetlb_fault+0x222/0xbe0
> [<ffffffff9dff1405>] follow_hugetlb_page+0x175/0x540
> [<ffffffff9e15b825>] ? cpumask_next_and+0x35/0x50
> [<ffffffff9dfc7230>] __get_user_pages+0x2a0/0x7e0
> [<ffffffff9dfc648d>] __get_user_pages_unlocked+0x15d/0x210
> [<ffffffffc068cfc5>] __gfn_to_pfn_memslot+0x3c5/0x460 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc06b28be>] try_async_pf+0x6e/0x2a0 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc06b4b41>] tdp_page_fault+0x151/0x2d0 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc075731c>] ? vmx_vcpu_run+0x2ec/0xc80 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc0757328>] ? vmx_vcpu_run+0x2f8/0xc80 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc06abc11>] kvm_mmu_page_fault+0x31/0x140 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc074d1ae>] handle_ept_violation+0x9e/0x170 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc075579c>] vmx_handle_exit+0x2bc/0xc70 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc074f1a0>] ? __vmx_complete_interrupts.part.73+0x80/0xd0 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc07574c0>] ? vmx_vcpu_run+0x490/0xc80 [kvm_intel]
> [<ffffffffc069f3be>] vcpu_enter_guest+0x7be/0x13a0 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc06cf53e>] ? kvm_check_async_pf_completion+0x8e/0xb0 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc06a6f90>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x330/0x490 [kvm]
> [<ffffffffc068d919>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x309/0x6d0 [kvm]
> [<ffffffff9deaa8c2>] ? dequeue_signal+0x32/0x180
> [<ffffffff9deae34d>] ? do_sigtimedwait+0xcd/0x230
> [<ffffffff9e03aed0>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x3f0/0x540
> [<ffffffff9e03b0c1>] SyS_ioctl+0xa1/0xc0
> [<ffffffff9e53879b>] system_call_fastpath+0x22/0x27
>
> ( The kernel we used is older, but we think the latest kernel also has this
> bug after dig into this problem. )
>
> For 1G hugepages, huge_pte_offset() wants to return NULL or pudp, but it
> may return a wrong 'pmdp' if there is a race. Please look at the following
> code snippet:
> ...
> pud = pud_offset(p4d, addr);
> if (sz != PUD_SIZE && pud_none(*pud))
> return NULL;
> /* hugepage or swap? */
> if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
> return (pte_t *)pud;
>
> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> if (sz != PMD_SIZE && pmd_none(*pmd))
> return NULL;
> /* hugepage or swap? */
> if (pmd_huge(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd))
> return (pte_t *)pmd;
> ...
>
> The following sequence would trigger this bug:
> 1. CPU0: sz = PUD_SIZE and *pud = 0 , continue
> 1. CPU0: "pud_huge(*pud)" is false
> 2. CPU1: calling hugetlb_no_page and set *pud to xxxx8e7(PRESENT)
> 3. CPU0: "!pud_present(*pud)" is false, continue
> 4. CPU0: pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr) and maybe return a wrong pmdp
> However, we want CPU0 to return NULL or pudp.
>
> We can avoid this race by read the pud only once. What's more, we also use
> READ_ONCE to access the entries for safe(e.g. avoid the compilier mischief)
>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Longpeng <longpeng2@xxxxxxxxxx>
Andrew dropped this patch from his tree which caused me to go back and
look at the status of this patch/issue.
It is pretty obvious that code in the current huge_pte_offset routine
is racy. I checked out the assembly code produced by my compiler and
verified that the line,
if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
does actually dereference *pud twice. So, the value could change between
those two dereferences. Longpeng (Mike) could easlily recreate the issue
if he put a delay between the two dereferences. I believe the only
reservations/concerns about the patch below was the use of READ_ONCE().
Is that correct?
Are there any objections to the patch if the READ_ONCE() calls are removed?
Longpeng (Mike), can you recreate the issue by adding the delay and removing
the READ_ONCE() calls?
--
Mike Kravetz
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - avoid renaming [Matthew, Mike]
>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index dd8737a..90daf37 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4910,28 +4910,30 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
> {
> pgd_t *pgd;
> p4d_t *p4d;
> - pud_t *pud;
> - pmd_t *pmd;
> + pud_t *pud, pud_entry;
> + pmd_t *pmd, pmd_entry;
>
> pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> - if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> + if (!pgd_present(READ_ONCE(*pgd)))
> return NULL;
> p4d = p4d_offset(pgd, addr);
> - if (!p4d_present(*p4d))
> + if (!p4d_present(READ_ONCE(*p4d)))
> return NULL;
>
> pud = pud_offset(p4d, addr);
> - if (sz != PUD_SIZE && pud_none(*pud))
> + pud_entry = READ_ONCE(*pud);
> + if (sz != PUD_SIZE && pud_none(pud_entry))
> return NULL;
> /* hugepage or swap? */
> - if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
> + if (pud_huge(pud_entry) || !pud_present(pud_entry))
> return (pte_t *)pud;
>
> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> - if (sz != PMD_SIZE && pmd_none(*pmd))
> + pmd_entry = READ_ONCE(*pmd);
> + if (sz != PMD_SIZE && pmd_none(pmd_entry))
> return NULL;
> /* hugepage or swap? */
> - if (pmd_huge(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd))
> + if (pmd_huge(pmd_entry) || !pmd_present(pmd_entry))
> return (pte_t *)pmd;
>
> return NULL;
>
