On 12/10/24 18:16, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 8:32 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12/10/24 17:20, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 6:21 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/6/24 23:52, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> >> > To enable SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU for vma cache we need to ensure that >> >> > object reuse before RCU grace period is over will be detected inside >> >> > lock_vma_under_rcu(). >> >> > lock_vma_under_rcu() enters RCU read section, finds the vma at the >> >> > given address, locks the vma and checks if it got detached or remapped >> >> > to cover a different address range. These last checks are there >> >> > to ensure that the vma was not modified after we found it but before >> >> > locking it. >> >> > vma reuse introduces several new possibilities: >> >> > 1. vma can be reused after it was found but before it is locked; >> >> > 2. vma can be reused and reinitialized (including changing its vm_mm) >> >> > while being locked in vma_start_read(); >> >> > 3. vma can be reused and reinitialized after it was found but before >> >> > it is locked, then attached at a new address or to a new mm while >> >> > read-locked; >> >> > For case #1 current checks will help detecting cases when: >> >> > - vma was reused but not yet added into the tree (detached check) >> >> > - vma was reused at a different address range (address check); >> >> > We are missing the check for vm_mm to ensure the reused vma was not >> >> > attached to a different mm. This patch adds the missing check. >> >> > For case #2, we pass mm to vma_start_read() to prevent access to >> >> > unstable vma->vm_mm. This might lead to vma_start_read() returning >> >> > a false locked result but that's not critical if it's rare because >> >> > it will only lead to a retry under mmap_lock. >> >> > For case #3, we ensure the order in which vma->detached flag and >> >> > vm_start/vm_end/vm_mm are set and checked. vma gets attached after >> >> > vm_start/vm_end/vm_mm were set and lock_vma_under_rcu() should check >> >> > vma->detached before checking vm_start/vm_end/vm_mm. This is required >> >> > because attaching vma happens without vma write-lock, as opposed to >> >> > vma detaching, which requires vma write-lock. This patch adds memory >> >> > barriers inside is_vma_detached() and vma_mark_attached() needed to >> >> > order reads and writes to vma->detached vs vm_start/vm_end/vm_mm. >> >> > After these provisions, SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU is added to vm_area_cachep. >> >> > This will facilitate vm_area_struct reuse and will minimize the number >> >> > of call_rcu() calls. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> I'm wondering about the vma freeing path. Consider vma_complete(): >> >> >> >> vma_mark_detached(vp->remove); >> >> vma->detached = true; - plain write >> >> vm_area_free(vp->remove); >> >> vma->vm_lock_seq = UINT_MAX; - plain write >> >> kmem_cache_free(vm_area_cachep) >> >> ... >> >> potential reallocation >> >> >> >> against: >> >> >> >> lock_vma_under_rcu() >> >> - mas_walk finds a stale vma due to race >> >> vma_start_read() >> >> if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(mm->mm_lock_seq.sequence)) >> >> - can be false, the vma was not being locked on the freeing side? >> >> down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock.lock) - suceeds, wasn't locked >> >> this is acquire, but was there any release? >> > >> > Yes, there was a release. I think what you missed is that >> > vma_mark_detached() that is called from vma_complete() requires VMA to >> > be write-locked (see vma_assert_write_locked() in >> > vma_mark_detached()). The rule is that a VMA can be attached without >> > write-locking but only a write-locked VMA can be detached. So, after >> >> OK but write unlocking means the mm's seqcount is bumped and becomes >> non-equal with vma's vma->vm_lock_seq, right? >> >> Yet in the example above we happily set it to UINT_MAX and thus effectively >> false unlock it for vma_start_read()? >> >> And this is all done before the vma_complete() side would actually reach >> mmap_write_unlock(), AFAICS. > > Ah, you are right. With the possibility of reuse, even a freed VMA > should be kept write-locked until it is unlocked by > mmap_write_unlock(). I think the fix for this is simply to not reset > vma->vm_lock_seq inside vm_area_free(). I'll also need to add a But even if we don't reset vm_lock_seq to UINT_MAX, then whover reallocated it can proceed and end up doing a vma_start_write() and rewrite it there anyway, no? > comment for vm_lock_seq explaining these requirements. > Do you agree that such a change would resolve the issue? > >> >> > vma_mark_detached() and before down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock.lock) >> > in vma_start_read() the VMA write-lock should have been released by >> > mmap_write_unlock() and therefore vma->detached=false should be >> > visible to the reader when it executed lock_vma_under_rcu(). >> > >> >> is_vma_detached() - false negative as the write above didn't propagate >> >> here yet; a read barrier but where is the write barrier? >> >> checks for vma->vm_mm, vm_start, vm_end - nobody reset them yet so false >> >> positive, or they got reset on reallocation but writes didn't propagate >> >> >> >> Am I missing something that would prevent lock_vma_under_rcu() falsely >> >> succeeding here? >> >> >>
