On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:42:48AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:34 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:57 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:43:33AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:36:17AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > Write-locking VMAs before isolating them ensures that page fault > > > > > handlers don't operate on isolated VMAs. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > mm/mmap.c | 1 + > > > > > mm/nommu.c | 5 +++++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c > > > > > index 1f42b9a52b9b..f7ed357056c4 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c > > > > > @@ -2255,6 +2255,7 @@ int split_vma(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > > > static inline int munmap_sidetree(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > > > struct ma_state *mas_detach) > > > > > { > > > > > + vma_start_write(vma); > > > > > mas_set_range(mas_detach, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end - 1); > > > > > > > > I may be missing something, but have few questions: > > > > > > > > 1) Why does a writer need to both write-lock a VMA and mark the VMA detached > > > > when unmapping it, isn't it enough to just only write-lock a VMA? > > > > We need to mark the VMA detached to avoid handling page fault in a > > detached VMA. The possible scenario is: > > > > lock_vma_under_rcu > > vma = mas_walk(&mas) > > munmap_sidetree > > vma_start_write(vma) > > > > mas_store_gfp() // remove VMA from the tree > > vma_end_write_all() > > vma_start_read(vma) > > // we locked the VMA but it is not part of the tree anymore. > > > > So, marking the VMA locked before vma_end_write_all() and checking > > Sorry, I should have said "marking the VMA *detached* before > vma_end_write_all() and checking vma->detached after vma_start_read() > helps us avoid handling faults in the detached VMA." > > > vma->detached after vma_start_read() helps us avoid handling faults in > > the detached VMA. Thank you for explanation, that makes sense! By the way, if there are no 32bit users of Per-VMA lock (are there?), "detached" bool could be a VMA flag (i.e. making it depend on 64BIT and selecting ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS) Thanks, Hyeonggon