Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 06:24:15AM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Ok, I think I found the issue.  wp_page_shared() ->
> fault_dirty_shared_page() can drop mmap_lock (see the comment saying
> "Drop the mmap_lock before waiting on IO, if we can...", therefore we
> have to ensure we are not doing this under per-VMA lock.

... or we could change maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io() the same way
that we changed folio_lock_or_retry():

+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static inline struct file *maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(struct vm_fault *vmf,
        if (fault_flag_allow_retry_first(flags) &&
            !(flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)) {
                fpin = get_file(vmf->vma->vm_file);
-               mmap_read_unlock(vmf->vma->vm_mm);
+               release_fault_lock(vmf);
        }
        return fpin;
 }

What do you think?

> I think what happens is that this path is racing with another page
> fault which took mmap_lock for read. fault_dirty_shared_page()
> releases this lock which was taken by another page faulting thread and
> that thread generates an assertion when it finds out the lock it just
> took got released from under it.

I'm confused that our debugging didn't catch this earlier.  lockdep
should always catch this.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux