> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:27 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:44 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it easy to reproduce? If so could you please describe the steps? As i see
> > > > > > the freeing of the "vb" is RCU safe whereas vb->va is not. But from the first
> > > > > > glance i do not see how it can accessed twice. Hm..
> > > > > It was raised from a monkey test on A13_k515 system and got 1/20 pcs
> > > > > failed. IMO, vb->va which out of vmap_purge_lock protection could race
> > > > > with a concurrent ra freeing within __purge_vmap_area_lazy.
> > > > >
> > > > Do you have exact steps how you run "monkey" test?
> > > There are about 30+ kos inserted during startup which could be a
> > > specific criteria for reproduction. Do you have doubts about the test
> > > result or the solution?
> > > >
> > I do not have any doubt about your test results, so if you can trigger it
> > then there is an issue at least on the 5.4.161-android12 kernel.
> >
> > 1. With your fix we get expanded mutex range, thus the worst case of vmalloc
> > allocation can be increased when it fails and repeat. Because it also invokes
> > the purge_vmap_area_lazy() that access the same mutex.
> I am not sure I get your point. _vm_unmap_aliases calls
> _purge_vmap_area_lazy instead of purge_vmap_area_lazy. Do you have any
> other solutions? I really don't think my patch is the best way as I
> don't have a full view of vmalloc mechanism.
>
Yep, but it holds the mutex:
<snip>
mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock);
purge_fragmented_blocks_allcpus();
if (!__purge_vmap_area_lazy(start, end) && flush)
flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end);
mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
<snip>
I do not have a solution yet. I am trying still to figure out how you can
trigger it.
<snip>
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(vb, &vbq->free, free_list) {
spin_lock(&vb->lock);
if (vb->dirty && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
unsigned long va_start = vb->va->va_start;
<snip>
so you say that "vb->va->va_start" can be accessed twice. I do not see
how it can happen. The purge_fragmented_blocks() removes "vb" from the
free_list and set vb->dirty to the VMAP_BBMAP_BITS to prevent purging
it again. It is protected by the spin_lock(&vb->lock):
<snip>
spin_lock(&vb->lock);
if (vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
vb->free = 0; /* prevent further allocs after releasing lock */
vb->dirty = VMAP_BBMAP_BITS; /* prevent purging it again */
vb->dirty_min = 0;
vb->dirty_max = VMAP_BBMAP_BITS;
<snip>
so the VMAP_BBMAP_BITS is set under spinlock. The _vm_unmap_aliases() checks it:
<snip>
list_for_each_entry_rcu(vb, &vbq->free, free_list) {
spin_lock(&vb->lock);
if (vb->dirty && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
unsigned long va_start = vb->va->va_start;
unsigned long s, e;
<snip>
if the "vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS". I am missing your point here?
> >
> > 2. You run 5.4.161-android12 kernel what is quite old. Could you please
> > retest with latest kernel? I am asking because on the latest kernel with
> > CONFIG_KASAN i am not able to reproduce it.
> >
> > I do a lot of: vm_map_ram()/vm_unmap_ram()/vmalloc()/vfree() in parallel
> > by 64 kthreads on my 64 CPUs test system.
> The failure generates at 20s from starting up, I think it is a rare timing.
> >
> > Could you please confirm that you can trigger an issue on the latest kernel?
> Sorry, I don't have an available latest kernel for now.
>
Can you do: "gdb ./vmlinux", execute "l *_vm_unmap_aliases+0x164" and provide
output?
--
Uladzislau Rezki
