On 11/5/18 1:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:23:15 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This bug has been experienced several times by Oracle DB team.
>> The BUG is in the routine remove_inode_hugepages() as follows:
>> /*
>> * If page is mapped, it was faulted in after being
>> * unmapped in caller. Unmap (again) now after taking
>> * the fault mutex. The mutex will prevent faults
>> * until we finish removing the page.
>> *
>> * This race can only happen in the hole punch case.
>> * Getting here in a truncate operation is a bug.
>> */
>> if (unlikely(page_mapped(page))) {
>> BUG_ON(truncate_op);
>>
>> In this case, the elevated map count is not the result of a race.
>> Rather it was incorrectly incremented as the result of a bug in the
>> huge pmd sharing code. Consider the following:
>> - Process A maps a hugetlbfs file of sufficient size and alignment
>> (PUD_SIZE) that a pmd page could be shared.
>> - Process B maps the same hugetlbfs file with the same size and alignment
>> such that a pmd page is shared.
>> - Process B then calls mprotect() to change protections for the mapping
>> with the shared pmd. As a result, the pmd is 'unshared'.
>> - Process B then calls mprotect() again to chage protections for the
>> mapping back to their original value. pmd remains unshared.
>> - Process B then forks and process C is created. During the fork process,
>> we do dup_mm -> dup_mmap -> copy_page_range to copy page tables. Copying
>> page tables for hugetlb mappings is done in the routine
>> copy_hugetlb_page_range.
>>
>> In copy_hugetlb_page_range(), the destination pte is obtained by:
>> dst_pte = huge_pte_alloc(dst, addr, sz);
>> If pmd sharing is possible, the returned pointer will be to a pte in
>> an existing page table. In the situation above, process C could share
>> with either process A or process B. Since process A is first in the
>> list, the returned pte is a pointer to a pte in process A's page table.
>>
>> However, the following check for pmd sharing is in copy_hugetlb_page_range.
>> /* If the pagetables are shared don't copy or take references */
>> if (dst_pte == src_pte)
>> continue;
>>
>> Since process C is sharing with process A instead of process B, the above
>> test fails. The code in copy_hugetlb_page_range which follows assumes
>> dst_pte points to a huge_pte_none pte. It copies the pte entry from
>> src_pte to dst_pte and increments this map count of the associated page.
>> This is how we end up with an elevated map count.
>>
>> To solve, check the dst_pte entry for huge_pte_none. If !none, this
>> implies PMD sharing so do not copy.
>>
>
> Does it warrant a cc:stable?
My apologies, yes it does. Here are the additional tags:
Fixes: c5c99429fa57 ("fix hugepages leak due to pagetable page sharing")
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Let me know if you want me to resend with these.
--
Mike Kravetz
