On Fri, 6 May 2016, zhouchengming wrote:
> On 2016/5/6 5:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:42:56 +0800 Zhou Chengming<zhouchengming1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A concurrency issue about KSM in the function scan_get_next_rmap_item.
> > >
> > > task A (ksmd): |task B (the mm's task):
> > > |
> > > mm = slot->mm; |
> > > down_read(&mm->mmap_sem); |
> > > |
> > > ... |
> > > |
> > > spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); |
> > > |
> > > ksm_scan.mm_slot go to the next slot; |
> > > |
> > > spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock); |
> > > |mmput() ->
> > > | ksm_exit():
> > > |
> > > |spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> > > |if (mm_slot&& ksm_scan.mm_slot !=
> > > mm_slot) {
> > > | if (!mm_slot->rmap_list) {
> > > | easy_to_free = 1;
> > > | ...
> > > |
> > > |if (easy_to_free) {
> > > | mmdrop(mm);
> > > | ...
> > > |
> > > |So this mm_struct will be freed
> > > successfully.
Good catch, yes. Note that the mmdrop(mm) shown above is not the one that
frees the mm_struct: the whole address space has to be torn down before
we reach the mmdrop(mm) which actually frees the mm_struct. But you're
right that there's no serialization against ksmd in that interval, so if
ksmd is rescheduled or interrupted for a long time, yes that mm_struct
might be freed by the time of its up_read() below.
> > > |
> > > up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); |
> > >
> > > As we can see above, the ksmd thread may access a mm_struct that already
> > > been freed to the kmem_cache.
> > > Suppose a fork will get this mm_struct from the kmem_cache, the ksmd
> > > thread
> > > then call up_read(&mm->mmap_sem), will cause mmap_sem.count to become -1.
> > > I changed the scan_get_next_rmap_item function refered to the khugepaged
> > > scan function.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > We need to decide whether this fix should be backported into earlier
> > (-stable) kernels. Can you tell us how easily this is triggered and
> > share your thoughts on this?
Not easy to trigger at all, I think, and I've never seen it or heard
a report of it; but possible. It can only happen when there are one or
more VM_MERGEABLE areas in the process, but they're all empty or swapped
out when it exits (the easy_to_free route which presents this problem is
only taken in that !mm_slot->rmap_list case - intended to minimize the
drag on quick processes which exit before ksmd even reaches them).
But if ksmd is preempted for a long time in between its spin_unlock
and its up_read, then yes it can happen. Fix should go back to
2.6.32, I don't think there's been much change here since it went in.
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>
> I write a patch that can easily trigger this bug.
> When ksmd go to sleep, if a fork get this mm_struct, BUG_ON
> will be triggered.
Please don't use the patch below to test the final version of your fix
(including latest suggestions from Andrea): mm->owner is updated even
before the final mmput() which calls ksm_exit(), so BUGging on a
change of mm->owner says nothing about how likely it would be to
up_read on a freed mm_struct.
Hugh
>
> From eedfdd12eb11858f69ff4a4300acad42946ca260 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:49:22 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] ksm: trigger a bug
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/ksm.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
> index ca6d2a0..676368c 100644
> --- a/mm/ksm.c
> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
> @@ -1519,6 +1519,18 @@ static struct rmap_item *get_next_rmap_item(struct
> mm_slot *mm_slot,
> return rmap_item;
> }
>
> +static void trigger_a_bug(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + /* send KILL sig to the task, hope the mm_struct will be freed */
> + do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
> + /* sleep for 5s, the mm_struct will be freed and another fork
> + * will use this mm_struct
> + */
> + schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> + /* the mm_struct owned by another task */
> + BUG_ON(mm->owner != p);
> +}
> +
> static struct rmap_item *scan_get_next_rmap_item(struct page **page)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> @@ -1526,6 +1538,7 @@ static struct rmap_item *scan_get_next_rmap_item(struct
> page **page)
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> struct rmap_item *rmap_item;
> int nid;
> + struct task_struct *taskp;
>
> if (list_empty(&ksm_mm_head.mm_list))
> return NULL;
> @@ -1636,6 +1649,8 @@ next_mm:
> remove_trailing_rmap_items(slot, ksm_scan.rmap_list);
>
> spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> + /* get the mm's task now in the ksm_mmlist_lock */
> + taskp = mm->owner;
> ksm_scan.mm_slot = list_entry(slot->mm_list.next,
> struct mm_slot, mm_list);
> if (ksm_scan.address == 0) {
> @@ -1651,6 +1666,7 @@ next_mm:
> hash_del(&slot->link);
> list_del(&slot->mm_list);
> spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> + trigger_a_bug(taskp, mm);
>
> free_mm_slot(slot);
> clear_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags);
> @@ -1658,6 +1674,7 @@ next_mm:
> mmdrop(mm);
> } else {
> spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> + trigger_a_bug(taskp, mm);
> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.7
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>