On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry this is not a full review - but I do agree on the general principle of working around the intermediate checks in any way you need as long as validate_mm passes when you're done modifying the vma structures :)Hello Michel,
Hi Andrea, nice hearing from you :)
I altered the vma_adjust code and it's triggering what looks like to
be a false positive in vma_rb_erase->validate_mm_rb with
CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_RB=y.
So what happens is normally remove_next == 1 or == 2, and set
vma->vm_end to next->vm_end and then call validate_mm_rb(next) and it
passes and then unlink "next" (removed from vm_next/prev and rbtree).
I introduced a new case to fix a bug remove_next == 3 that actually
removes "vma" and sets next->vm_start = vma->vm_start.
So the old code was always doing:
vma->vm_end = next->vm_end
vma_rb_erase(next) // in __vma_unlink
vma->vm_next = next->vm_next // in __vma_unlink
next = vma->vm_next
vma_gap_update(next)
The new code still does the above for remove_next == 1 and 2, but for
remove_next ==3 it has been changed and it does:
next->vm_start = vma->vm_start
vma_rb_erase(vma) // in __vma_unlink
vma_gap_update(next)
However it bugs out in vma_rb_erase(vma) because next->vm_start was
reduced. However I tend to think what I'm executing is correct.
It sounds like the gaps get temporarily out of sync, which is not an actual problem as long as they get fixed before releasing the appropriate locks (which you can verify by checking if the validate_mm() call at the end of vma_adjust() still passes).
I'm guessing that for the update you're doing, the validate_mm_rb call within vma_rb_erase may need to ignore vma->next rather than vma itself.
It's pointless to call vma_gap_update before I can call vm_rb_erase
anyway so certainly I can't fix it that way. I'm forced to remove
"vma" from the rbtree before I can call vma_gap_update(next).
So I did other tests:
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 27f0509..a38c8a0 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -400,15 +400,9 @@ static inline void vma_rb_insert(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
rb_insert_augmented(&vma->vm_rb, root, &vma_gap_callbacks);
}
-static void vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
+static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
{
/*
- * All rb_subtree_gap values must be consistent prior to erase,
- * with the possible exception of the vma being erased.
- */
- validate_mm_rb(root, vma);
-
- /*
* Note rb_erase_augmented is a fairly large inline function,
* so make sure we instantiate it only once with our desired
* augmented rbtree callbacks.
@@ -416,6 +410,18 @@ static void vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
rb_erase_augmented(&vma->vm_rb, root, &vma_gap_callbacks);
}
+static __always_inline void vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+ struct rb_root *root)
+{
+ /*
+ * All rb_subtree_gap values must be consistent prior to erase,
+ * with the possible exception of the vma being erased.
+ */
+ validate_mm_rb(root, vma);
+
+ __vma_rb_erase(vma, root);
+}
+
/*
* vma has some anon_vma assigned, and is already inserted on that
* anon_vma's interval trees.
@@ -606,7 +612,10 @@ static __always_inline void __vma_unlink_common(struct mm_struct *mm,
{
struct vm_area_struct *next;
- vma_rb_erase(vma, &mm->mm_rb);
+ if (has_prev)
+ vma_rb_erase(vma, &mm->mm_rb);
+ else
+ __vma_rb_erase(vma, &mm->mm_rb);
next = vma->vm_next;
if (has_prev)
prev->vm_next = next;
@@ -892,9 +901,11 @@ again:
end = next->vm_end;
goto again;
}
- else if (next)
+ else if (next) {
vma_gap_update(next);
- else
+ if (remove_next == 3)
+ validate_mm_rb(&mm->mm_rb, next);
+ } else
mm->highest_vm_end = end;
}
if (insert && file)
The above shifts the validate_mm_rb(next) for the remove_next == 3
case from before the rb_removal of "vma" to after vma_gap_update is
called on "next". This works fine.
So if you agree this is a false positive of CONFIG_DEBUG_MM_RB and
there was no actual bug, I just suggest to shut off the warning by
telling validate_mm_rb not to ignore the vma that is being removed but
the next one, if the next->vm_start was reduced to overlap over the
vma that is being removed.
I haven't looked in enough detail, but this seems workable. The important part is that validate_mm must pass at the end up the update. Any other intermediate checks are secondary - don't feel bad about overriding them if they get in the way :)
This shut off the warning just fine for me and it leaves the
validation in place and always enabled. Just it skips the check on the
next vma that was updated instead of the one that is being removed if
it was the next one that had next->vm_start reduced.
On a side note I also noticed "mm->highest_vm_end = end" is erroneous,
it should be VM_WARN_ON(mm->highest_vm_end != end) but that's
offtopic.
So this would be the patch I'd suggest to shut off the false positive,
it's a noop when CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_RB=n.
>From fc256d7f71cd6295a5258387c0cb2af9134d16a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:01:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mm: vma_merge: correct false positive from
__vma_unlink->validate_mm_rb
The old code was always doing:
vma->vm_end = next->vm_end
vma_rb_erase(next) // in __vma_unlink
vma->vm_next = next->vm_next // in __vma_unlink
next = vma->vm_next
vma_gap_update(next)
The new code still does the above for remove_next == 1 and 2, but for
remove_next == 3 it has been changed and it does:
next->vm_start = vma->vm_start
vma_rb_erase(vma) // in __vma_unlink
vma_gap_update(next)
In the latter case, while unlinking "vma", validate_mm_rb() is told to
ignore "vma" that is being removed, but next->vm_start was reduced
instead. So for the new case, to avoid the false positive from
validate_mm_rb, it should be "next" that is ignored when "vma" is
being unlinked.
"vma" and "next" in the above comment, considered pre-swap().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Still confused by some parts of the proposed patch:
@@ -600,11 +620,15 @@ static void __insert_vm_struct(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
static __always_inline void __vma_unlink_common(struct mm_struct *mm,
struct vm_area_struct *vma,
struct vm_area_struct *prev,
- bool has_prev)
+ bool has_prev,
+ struct vm_area_struct *ignore)
{
struct vm_area_struct *next;
- vma_rb_erase(vma, &mm->mm_rb);
+ if (has_prev)
+ vma_rb_erase_ignore(vma, &mm->mm_rb, ignore);
+ else
+ vma_rb_erase_ignore(vma, &mm->mm_rb, ignore);
next = vma->vm_next;
if (has_prev)
prev->vm_next = next;
You seem to have the same function call on both sides of the if ???
@@ -626,13 +650,7 @@ static inline void __vma_unlink_prev(struct mm_struct *mm,
struct vm_area_struct *vma,
struct vm_area_struct *prev)
{
- __vma_unlink_common(mm, vma, prev, true);
-}
-
-static inline void __vma_unlink(struct mm_struct *mm,
- struct vm_area_struct *vma)
-{
- __vma_unlink_common(mm, vma, NULL, false);
+ __vma_unlink_common(mm, vma, prev, true, vma);
}
/*
confused as to why some of the __vma_unlink_common parameters change, other than just adding the ignore parameter
Hope this helps,