Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Nov 22, 2021, at 11:43 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> In theory, the following race is possible for batched TLB flushing.
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> shrink_page_list()
>> unmap
>> zap_pte_range()
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending()
>> flush_tlb_mm()
>> try_to_unmap()
>> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending()
>> mm->tlb_flush_batched = true
>> mm->tlb_flush_batched = false
>>
>> After the TLB is flushed on CPU1 via flush_tlb_mm() and before
>> mm->tlb_flush_batched is set to false, some PTE is unmapped on CPU0
>> and the TLB flushing is pended. Then the pended TLB flushing will be
>> lost. Although both set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() and
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending() are called with PTL locked, different PTL
>> instances may be used.
>>
>> Because the race window is really small, and the lost TLB flushing
>> will cause problem only if a TLB entry is inserted before the
>> unmapping in the race window, the race is only theoretical. But the
>> fix is simple and cheap too.
>>
>> Syzbot has reported this too as follows,
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in flush_tlb_batched_pending / try_to_unmap_one
>>
>> write to 0xffff8881072cfbbc of 1 bytes by task 17406 on cpu 1:
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending+0x5f/0x80 mm/rmap.c:691
>> madvise_free_pte_range+0xee/0x7d0 mm/madvise.c:594
>> walk_pmd_range mm/pagewalk.c:128 [inline]
>> walk_pud_range mm/pagewalk.c:205 [inline]
>> walk_p4d_range mm/pagewalk.c:240 [inline]
>> walk_pgd_range mm/pagewalk.c:277 [inline]
>> __walk_page_range+0x981/0x1160 mm/pagewalk.c:379
>> walk_page_range+0x131/0x300 mm/pagewalk.c:475
>> madvise_free_single_vma mm/madvise.c:734 [inline]
>> madvise_dontneed_free mm/madvise.c:822 [inline]
>> madvise_vma mm/madvise.c:996 [inline]
>> do_madvise+0xe4a/0x1140 mm/madvise.c:1202
>> __do_sys_madvise mm/madvise.c:1228 [inline]
>> __se_sys_madvise mm/madvise.c:1226 [inline]
>> __x64_sys_madvise+0x5d/0x70 mm/madvise.c:1226
>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
>> do_syscall_64+0x44/0xd0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>>
>> write to 0xffff8881072cfbbc of 1 bytes by task 71 on cpu 0:
>> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending mm/rmap.c:636 [inline]
>> try_to_unmap_one+0x60e/0x1220 mm/rmap.c:1515
>> rmap_walk_anon+0x2fb/0x470 mm/rmap.c:2301
>> try_to_unmap+0xec/0x110
>> shrink_page_list+0xe91/0x2620 mm/vmscan.c:1719
>> shrink_inactive_list+0x3fb/0x730 mm/vmscan.c:2394
>> shrink_list mm/vmscan.c:2621 [inline]
>> shrink_lruvec+0x3c9/0x710 mm/vmscan.c:2940
>> shrink_node_memcgs+0x23e/0x410 mm/vmscan.c:3129
>> shrink_node+0x8f6/0x1190 mm/vmscan.c:3252
>> kswapd_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:4022 [inline]
>> balance_pgdat+0x702/0xd30 mm/vmscan.c:4213
>> kswapd+0x200/0x340 mm/vmscan.c:4473
>> kthread+0x2c7/0x2e0 kernel/kthread.c:327
>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>>
>> value changed: 0x01 -> 0x00
>>
>> Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 71 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc1-syzkaller #0
>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+aa5bebed695edaccf0df@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/mm_types.h | 2 +-
>> mm/rmap.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> index c3a6e6209600..789778067db9 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ struct mm_struct {
>> atomic_t tlb_flush_pending;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH
>> /* See flush_tlb_batched_pending() */
>> - bool tlb_flush_batched;
>> + atomic_t tlb_flush_batched;
>> #endif
>> struct uprobes_state uprobes_state;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 163ac4e6bcee..60902c3cfb4a 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ static void set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm, bool writable)
>> * before the PTE is cleared.
>> */
>> barrier();
>> - mm->tlb_flush_batched = true;
>> + atomic_inc(&mm->tlb_flush_batched);
>>
>> /*
>> * If the PTE was dirty then it's best to assume it's writable. The
>> @@ -680,15 +680,16 @@ static bool should_defer_flush(struct mm_struct *mm, enum ttu_flags flags)
>> */
>> void flush_tlb_batched_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> - if (data_race(mm->tlb_flush_batched)) {
>> - flush_tlb_mm(mm);
>> + int batched = atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_batched);
>>
>> + if (batched) {
>> + flush_tlb_mm(mm);
>> /*
>> - * Do not allow the compiler to re-order the clearing of
>> - * tlb_flush_batched before the tlb is flushed.
>> + * If the new TLB flushing is pended during flushing,
>> + * leave mm->tlb_flush_batched as is, to avoid to lose
>> + * flushing.
>> */
>> - barrier();
>> - mm->tlb_flush_batched = false;
>> + atomic_cmpxchg(&mm->tlb_flush_batched, batched, 0);
>
> This does not seem to prevent a race completely.
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
>
> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending()
> [ tlb_flush_batched = 1 ]
>
> flush_tlb_batched_pending()
> [ batched = 1 ]
> flush_tlb_mm()
> ...
> flush_tlb_batched_pending()
> [ tlb_flush_batched = 0 ]
>
>
> ptep_get_and_clear()
> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending()
> [ tlb_flush_batched = 1 ]
>
>
> ...
> atomic_cmpxchg()
> [ succeeds ]
>
> At the end of this flow tlb_flush_batched is 0 although
> the TLB flush of CPU1’s newly added PTE was not done.
>
> If you go with your approach you need to have two atomic
> counters, one of the flushed “generation” and one of the
> pending “generation”.
Thanks for review. You are right, the race cannot be eliminated with
this patch completely. Maybe we can pack two counter into atomic_t to
implement the generation as above.
> Anyhow, I am just mentioning that I think a more fundamental
> solution is appropriate to take into account other flushes
> that might render flush_tlb_batched_pending() flush
> unnecessary.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
