On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:45:25PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: Hi Jann, > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:28 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:03 AM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > +locking maintainers > > > > Thanks! I'll CC the locking maintainers in the next posting. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Introduce a per-VMA rw_semaphore to be used during page fault handling > > > > instead of mmap_lock. Because there are cases when multiple VMAs need > > > > to be exclusively locked during VMA tree modifications, instead of the > > > > usual lock/unlock patter we mark a VMA as locked by taking per-VMA lock > > > > exclusively and setting vma->lock_seq to the current mm->lock_seq. When > > > > mmap_write_lock holder is done with all modifications and drops mmap_lock, > > > > it will increment mm->lock_seq, effectively unlocking all VMAs marked as > > > > locked. > > > [...] > > > > +static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > > > +{ > > > > + up_read(&vma->lock); > > > > +} > > > > > > One thing that might be gnarly here is that I think you might not be > > > allowed to use up_read() to fully release ownership of an object - > > > from what I remember, I think that up_read() (unlike something like > > > spin_unlock()) can access the lock object after it's already been > > > acquired by someone else. So if you want to protect against concurrent > > > deletion, this might have to be something like: > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(); /* keeps vma alive */ > > > up_read(&vma->lock); > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > But for deleting VMA one would need to write-lock the vma->lock first, > > which I assume can't happen until this up_read() is complete. Is that > > assumption wrong? > > __up_read() does: > > rwsem_clear_reader_owned(sem); > tmp = atomic_long_add_return_release(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count); > DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(tmp < 0, sem); > if (unlikely((tmp & (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK|RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) == > RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) { > clear_nonspinnable(sem); > rwsem_wake(sem); > } This sequence is covered by preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(). Would not it preserve the RCU grace period until after __up_read() exited? > The atomic_long_add_return_release() is the point where we are doing > the main lock-releasing. > > So if a reader dropped the read-lock while someone else was waiting on > the lock (RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) and no other readers were holding the > lock together with it, the reader also does clear_nonspinnable() and > rwsem_wake() afterwards. > But in rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), after we've set > RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, we can return successfully immediately once > rwsem_try_write_lock() sees that there are no active readers or > writers anymore (if RWSEM_LOCK_MASK is unset and the cmpxchg > succeeds). We're not necessarily waiting for the "nonspinnable" bit or > the wake. > > So yeah, I think down_write() can return successfully before up_read() > is done with its memory accesses. Thanks!