On 2017/6/19 12:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes
> targeting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated
> remotely. This can now cause an OOPS in leave_mm() at
> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:47:
>
> if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK)
> BUG();
>
> with this call trace:
> flush_tlb_func_local arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:239 [inline]
> flush_tlb_mm_range+0x26d/0x370 arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:317
>
> Without reentrancy, this OOPS is impossible: leave_mm() is only
> called if we're not in TLBSTATE_OK, but then we're unexpectedly
> in TLBSTATE_OK in leave_mm().
>
> This can be caused by flush_tlb_func_remote() happening between
> the two checks and calling leave_mm(), resulting in two consecutive
> leave_mm() calls on the same CPU with no intervening switch_mm()
> calls.
>
> We never saw this OOPS before because the old leave_mm()
> implementation didn't put us back in TLBSTATE_OK, so the assertion
> didn't fire.
HI, Andy
Today, I see same OOPS in linux 3.4 stable. It prove that it indeed has fired.
but It is rarely to appear. I review the code. I found the a issue.
when current->mm is NULL, leave_mm will be called. but it maybe in
TLBSTATE_OK, eg: unuse_mm call after task->mm = NULL , but before enter_lazy_tlb.
therefore, it will fire. is it right?
Thanks
zhongjiang
> Nadav noticed the reentrancy issue in a different context, but
> neither of us realized that it caused a problem yet.
>
> Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 3d28ebceaffa ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB to track the actual loaded mm")
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> index 2a5e851f2035..f06239c6919f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> static void flush_tlb_func_common(const struct flush_tlb_info *f,
> bool local, enum tlb_flush_reason reason)
> {
> + /* This code cannot presently handle being reentered. */
> + VM_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> +
> if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) != TLBSTATE_OK) {
> leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
> return;
> @@ -313,8 +316,12 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> info.end = TLB_FLUSH_ALL;
> }
>
> - if (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm))
> + if (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)) {
> + local_irq_disable();
> flush_tlb_func_local(&info, TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + }
> +
> if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), cpu) < nr_cpu_ids)
> flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), &info);
> put_cpu();
> @@ -370,8 +377,12 @@ void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
>
> int cpu = get_cpu();
>
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &batch->cpumask))
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &batch->cpumask)) {
> + local_irq_disable();
> flush_tlb_func_local(&info, TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + }
> +
> if (cpumask_any_but(&batch->cpumask, cpu) < nr_cpu_ids)
> flush_tlb_others(&batch->cpumask, &info);
> cpumask_clear(&batch->cpumask);
--
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>
