Hello Hugh,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:36:36AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I suppose: this one seems overblown to me, and risks more change
> (as the CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_RB=y crashes showed).
When DEBUG_VM_RB=n there was no bug that I know of. So I don't think
the fact there was a false positive in the validation code that didn't
immediately cope with the new changes, should be a major concern.
> But I've come back to it several times, not found any incorrectness,
> and was just about ready to Ack it (once the VM_RB fix is folded in,
> though I've not studied that yet): when I noticed that what I'd liked
> least about this one, looks unnecessary too - see below.
The reason the VM_RB=y incremental fix to the validation code is not a
few liner, is to micro-optimize it. I call directly
__vma_unlink_common to be sure the additional parameter is eliminated
at build time if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_RB=n, and it never risks to go
through the stack in production.
> At the bottom I've appended my corrected version of Andrea's
> earlier patches for comparison: maybe better for stable?
I think it's perfectly suitable for -stable, if there is urgency to
merge it in -stable. OTOH with regard to urgency, this isn't
exploitable and the bug was there for 10+ years?
> > +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);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Umm, how many functions do we need to unlink a vma?
> Perhaps I'm missing some essential, but what's wrong with a single
> __vma_unlink(mm, vma)? (Could omit mm, but probably better with it.)
Of course that would work, I did that initially. I only had
__vma_unlink and I just removed the "prev" parameter from it.
> The existing __vma_unlink(mm, vma, prev) dates, of course, from
> long before Linus added vma->vm_prev in 2.6.36. It doesn't really
> need its prev arg nowadays, and I wonder if that misled you into
> all this prev and has_prev stuff?
After removing "prev" from __vma_unlink I reintroduced
__vma_unlink_prev as a microoptimization for remove_next = 1/2
cases.
In those two cases we have already "prev" and it's guaranteed not
null. So by keeping the _common version __always_inline the parameters
of the _common disappears in the assembly and in turn the
__vma_unlink_prev is a bit faster.
Perhaps it's not worth to do these kind of microoptimizations? The
only reason I reintroduced a version of __vma_unlink_prev that gets
prev not NULL as parameter was explicitly to microoptimize with
__always_inline.
> (Yes, of course it needs to handle the NULL vma->vm_prev mm->mmap
> case, but that doesn't need these three functions.)
>
> But I see this area gets touched again in yesterday's 3/4 to fix
> the VM_RB issue. I haven't tried applying that patch on top to
> see what the result looks like, but I hope simpler than this.
Right, to handle the case of DEBUG_VM_RB=y I need to pass a different
"ignore" parameter in remove_next == 3, so it's even more worth to
microoptimize now that I'm forced to have a different kind of call
anyway, and I can't just call __vma_unlink(next).
Once the two patches are folded, __vma_unlink is renamed to
__vma_unlink_prev that is a more accurate name anyway I think, given
the parameters and that assumption it does on prev being not NULL.
> > + if (remove_next != 3)
> > + __vma_unlink_prev(mm, next, vma);
> > + else
> > + /* vma is not before next if they've been swapped */
> > + __vma_unlink(mm, next);
>
> And if the VM_RB issue doesn't complicate it, this would just amount to
> __vma_unlink(mm, next);
> without any remove_next 3 variation.
Yes, and VM_RB complicates it.
> > + if (remove_next != 3) {
>
> if (vma == orig_vma), and you won't need the remove_next 3 state at all.
I think that would be less readable. I don't want to risk to mistake
case 1/2/3. I could use an enum and REMOVE_NEXT, REMOVE_NEXT_NEXT,
REMOVE_PREV, or I could use -1 instead of 3 to show it's removing prev
if you wish, but I would prefer not to use vma == orig_vma to detect
remove_next != 3. It can't improve performance either.
orig_vma is purely for trans_huge split when the vma->vm_start/end
(and next->vm_start if adjust_next) boundary changes.
The only point of orig_vma is to replace this statement: "remove_next
!= 3 : vma : next". I wouldn't mix up the detection of case 1/2/3 with
that micro-optimization.
> Here's my fixup of Andrea's earlier version, not swapping vma and next
> as the above does, but applying properties of next to vma as before.
> Maybe this version should go in first, so that it's available as an
> easier and safer candidate for stable backports: whatever akpm prefers.
I think this is a more conservative and in turn safer approach for
urgent -stable or for urgent backports. Performance-wise I doubt any
difference is measurable.
For the longer term upstream, I think removing the oddness factor from
case 8 for good is better, as we may get bitten by it again and it's
also quite counter intuitive for the callers of vma_merge to receive a
vma that isn't already fully in sync with all the parameters passed to
vma_merge. And having to overwrite the "different" bits by hand. I
feel the oddness in case 8 should be dropped for good and it's not
much more complicated to do so (especially if we ignore the
__vma_unlink details which are a fully self contained problem and they
cannot add up to the complexity of vma_merge/vma_adjust).
I successfully tested your fix with the testcase that exercises the
race and reviewed your fix and it's certainly correct too to solve the
race against rmap_walks that access vma_page_prot/vm_flags. The fix in
-mm however is solving the race condition for all fields, if any
rmap_walk accessed more than those two fields, and without having to
copy them off.
Tested-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Overall I'm fine either ways, but I had to elaborate my preference :).
Thanks,
Andrea
--
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>