On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:19 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what's going on here, the whole > > "remove_table" thing only happens when you "remove a table", meaning > > you free an entire *pagetable*. Just zapping PTEs doesn't trigger that > > logic. > > I do have to admit that I'd be happier if this code - and the GUP code > that also relies on "interrupts off" behavior - would just use a > sequence counter instead. > > Relying on blocking IPI's is clever, but also clearly very subtle and > somewhat dangerous. > > I think our GUP code is a *lot* more important than some "legacy > x86-32 has problems in case you have an incredibly unlikely race that > re-populates the page table with a different page that just happens to > be exactly the same MOD-4GB", so honestly, I don't think the > load-tearing is even worth worrying about - if you have hardware that > is good enough at virtualizing things, it's almost certainly already > 64-bit, and running 32-bit virtual machines with PAE you really only > have yourself to blame. > > So I can't find it in myself to care about the 32-bit tearing thing, > but this discussion makes me worried about Fast GUP. > > Note that even with proper atomic > > pte_t pte = ptep_get_lockless(ptep); > > in gup_pte_range(), and even if the page tables are RCU-free'd, that > just means that the 'ptep' access itself is safe. > > But then you have the whole "the lookup of the page pointer is not > atomic" wrt that. And right now that GUP code does rely on the "block > IPI" to make it basically valid. > > I don't think it matters if GUP races with munmap or madvise() or > something like that - if you get the old page, that's still a valid > page, and the user only has himself to blame. > > But if we have memory pressure that causes vmscan to push out a page, > and it gets replaced with a new page, and GUP gets the old page with > no serialization, that sounds like a possible source of data > inconsistency. > > I don't know if this can happen, but the whole "interrupts disabled > doesn't actually block IPI's and synchronize with TLB flushes" really > sounds like it would affect GUP too. And be much more serious there > than on some x86-32 platform that nobody should be using anyway. That's why GUP-fast re-checks the PTE after it has grabbed a reference to the page. Pasting from a longer writeup that I plan to publish soon, describing how gup_pte_range() works: """ This guarantees that the page tables that are being walked aren't freed concurrently, but at the end of the walk, we have to grab a stable reference to the referenced page. For this we use the grab-reference-and-revalidate trick from above again: First we (locklessly) load the page table entry, then we grab a reference to the page that it points to (which can fail if the refcount is zero, in that case we bail), then we recheck that the page table entry is still the same, and if it changed in between, we drop the page reference and bail. This can, again, grab a reference to a page after it has already been freed and reallocated. The reason why this is fine is that the metadata structure that holds this refcount, `struct folio` (or `struct page`, depending on which kernel version you're looking at; in current kernels it's `folio` but `struct page` and `struct folio` are actually aliases for the same memory, basically, though that is supposed to maybe change at some point) is never freed; even when a page is freed and reallocated, the corresponding `struct folio` stays. This does have the fun consequence that whenever a page/folio has a non-zero refcount, the refcount can spuriously go up and then back down for a little bit. (Also it's technically not as simple as I just described it, because the `struct page` that the PTE points to might be a "tail page" of a `struct folio`. So actually we first read the PTE, the PTE gives us the `page*`, then from that we go to the `folio*`, then we try to grab a reference to the `folio`, then if that worked we check that the `page` still points to the same `folio`, and then we recheck that the PTE is still the same.) """
