On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 11:46 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit f931ab479dd24cf7a2c6e2df19778406892591fb upstream.
>
> Both arch_add_memory() and arch_remove_memory() expect a single threaded
> context.
[...]
> The result is that two threads calling devm_memremap_pages()
> simultaneously can end up colliding on pgd initialization. This leads
> to crash signatures like the following where the loser of the race
> initializes the wrong pgd entry:
[...]
> Hold the standard memory hotplug mutex over calls to
> arch_{add,remove}_memory().
[...]
This is not a sufficient fix, because memory_hotplug.c still assumes
there's only one 'writer':
void put_online_mems(void)
{
...
if (!--mem_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(mem_hotplug.active_writer))
wake_up_process(mem_hotplug.active_writer);
...
}
void mem_hotplug_begin(void)
{
mem_hotplug.active_writer = current;
memhp_lock_acquire();
for (;;) {
mutex_lock(&mem_hotplug.lock);
if (likely(!mem_hotplug.refcount))
break;
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
mutex_unlock(&mem_hotplug.lock);
schedule();
}
}
With multiple writers, one or more of them may hang or
{get,put}_online_mems() may mess up the hotplug reference count.
Is there a good reason that memory_hotplug.c isn't using an rwsem?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names
taken.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
