On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:28:15 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:28:08 +0900
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Mel.
> >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > rmap_walk_anon() was triggering errors in memory compaction that looks like
> >> > use-after-free errors in anon_vma. The problem appears to be that between
> >> > the page being isolated from the LRU and rcu_read_lock() being taken, the
> >> > mapcount of the page dropped to 0 and the anon_vma was freed. This patch
> >> > skips the migration of anon pages that are not mapped by anyone.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > mm/migrate.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> >> > index 98eaaf2..3c491e3 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> >> > @@ -602,6 +602,16 @@ static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, unsigned long private,
> >> > * just care Anon page here.
> >> > */
> >> > if (PageAnon(page)) {
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * If the page has no mappings any more, just bail. An
> >> > + * unmapped anon page is likely to be freed soon but worse,
> >> > + * it's possible its anon_vma disappeared between when
> >> > + * the page was isolated and when we reached here while
> >> > + * the RCU lock was not held
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (!page_mapcount(page))
> >>
> >> As looking code about mapcount of page, I got confused.
> >> I think mapcount of page is protected by pte lock.
> >> But I can't find pte lock in unmap_and_move.
> > There is no pte_lock.
> >
> >> If I am right, what protects race between this condition check and
> >> rcu_read_lock?
> >> This patch makes race window very small but It can't remove race totally.
> >>
> >> I think I am missing something.
> >> Pz, point me out. :)
> >>
> >
> > Hmm. This is my understanding of old story.
> >
> > At migration.
> > 1. we increase page_count().
> > 2. isolate it from LRU.
> > 3. call try_to_unmap() under rcu_read_lock(). Then,
> > 4. replace pte with swp_entry_t made by PFN. under pte_lock.
> > 5. do migarate
> > 6. remap new pages. under pte_lock()>
> > 7. release rcu_read_lock().
> >
> > Here, we don't care whether page->mapping holds valid anon_vma or not.
> >
> > Assume a racy threads which calls zap_pte_range() (or some other)
> >
> > a) When the thread finds valid pte under pte_lock and successfully call
> > page_remove_rmap().
> > In this case, migration thread finds try_to_unmap doesn't unmap any pte.
> > Then, at 6, remap pte will not work.
> > b) When the thread finds migrateion PTE(as swap entry) in zap_page_range().
> > In this case, migration doesn't find migrateion PTE and remap fails.
> >
> > Why rcu_read_lock() is necessary..
> > - When page_mapcount() goes to 0, we shouldn't trust page->mapping is valid.
> > - Possible cases are
> > i) anon_vma (= page->mapping) is freed and used for other object.
> > ii) anon_vma (= page->mapping) is freed
> > iii) anon_vma (= page->mapping) is freed and used as anon_vma again.
> >
> > Here, anon_vma_cachep is created by SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. Then, possible cases
> > are only ii) and iii). While anon_vma is anon_vma, try_to_unmap and remap_page
> > can work well because of the list of vmas and address check. IOW, remap routine
> > just do nothing if anon_vma is freed.
> >
> > I'm not sure by what logic "use-after-free anon_vma" is caught. But yes,
> > there will be case, "anon_vma is touched after freed.", I think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
> >
>
> Thanks for detail explanation, Kame.
> But it can't understand me enough, Sorry.
>
> Mel said he met "use-after-free errors in anon_vma".
> So added the check in unmap_and_move.
>
> if (PageAnon(page)) {
> ....
> if (!page_mapcount(page))
> goto uncharge;
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> My concern what protects racy mapcount of the page?
> For example,
>
> CPU A CPU B
> unmap_and_move
> page_mapcount check pass zap_pte_range
> <-- some stall --> pte_lock
> <-- some stall --> page_remove_rmap(map_count is zero!)
> <-- some stall --> pte_unlock
> <-- some stall --> anon_vma_unlink
> <-- some stall --> anon_vma free !!!!
> rcu_read_lock
> anon_vma has gone!!
>
> I think above scenario make error "use-after-free", again.
> What prevent above scenario?
>
I think this patch is not complete.
I guess this patch in [1/11] is trigger for the race.
==
+
+ /* Drop an anon_vma reference if we took one */
+ if (anon_vma && atomic_dec_and_lock(&anon_vma->migrate_refcount, &anon_vma->lock)) {
+ int empty = list_empty(&anon_vma->head);
+ spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
+ if (empty)
+ anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
+ }
==
If my understainding in above is correct, this "modify" freed anon_vma.
Then, use-after-free happens. (In old implementation, there are no refcnt,
so, there is no use-after-free ops.)
So, what I can think of now is a patch like following is necessary.
==
static inline struct anon_vma *anon_vma_alloc(void)
{
struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
anon_vma = kmem_cache_alloc(anon_vma_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
atomic_set(&anon_vma->refcnt, 1);
}
void anon_vma_free(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
{
/*
* This called when anon_vma is..
* - anon_vma->vma_list becomes empty.
* - incremetned refcnt while migration, ksm etc.. is dropped.
* - allocated but unused.
*/
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->refcnt))
kmem_cache_free(anon_vma_cachep, anon_vma);
}
==
Then all things will go simple.
Overhead is concern but list_empty() helps us much.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>