The patch titled
Subject: mm/mmu_notifiers: ensure range_end() is paired with range_start()
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-mmu_notifiers-esnure-range_end-is-paired-with-range_start.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm/mmu_notifiers: ensure range_end() is paired with range_start()
If one or more notifiers fails .invalidate_range_start(), invoke
.invalidate_range_end() for "all" notifiers. If there are multiple
notifiers, those that did not fail are expecting _start() and _end() to be
paired, e.g. KVM's mmu_notifier_count would become imbalanced. Disallow
notifiers that can fail _start() from implementing _end() so that it's
unnecessary to either track which notifiers rejected _start(), or had
already succeeded prior to a failed _start().
Note, the existing behavior of calling _start() on all notifiers even
after a previous notifier failed _start() was an unintented "feature".
Make it canon now that the behavior is depended on for correctness.
As of today, the bug is likely benign:
1. The only caller of the non-blocking notifier is OOM kill.
2. The only notifiers that can fail _start() are the i915 and Nouveau
drivers.
3. The only notifiers that utilize _end() are the SGI UV GRU driver
and KVM.
4. The GRU driver will never coincide with the i195/Nouveau drivers.
5. An imbalanced kvm->mmu_notifier_count only causes soft lockup in the
_guest_, and the guest is already doomed due to being an OOM victim.
Fix the bug now to play nice with future usage, e.g. KVM has a potential
use case for blocking memslot updates in KVM while an invalidation is
in-progress, and failure to unblock would result in said updates being
blocked indefinitely and hanging.
Found by inspection. Verified by adding a second notifier in KVM that
periodically returns -EAGAIN on non-blockable ranges, triggering OOM, and
observing that KVM exits with an elevated notifier count.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210311180057.1582638-1-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 93065ac753e4 ("mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers")
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ben Gardon <bgardon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 10 +++++-----
mm/mmu_notifier.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h~mm-mmu_notifiers-esnure-range_end-is-paired-with-range_start
+++ a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
@@ -169,11 +169,11 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
* the last refcount is dropped.
*
* If blockable argument is set to false then the callback cannot
- * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN. 0 should be returned
- * otherwise. Please note that if invalidate_range_start approves
- * a non-blocking behavior then the same applies to
- * invalidate_range_end.
- *
+ * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN if sleeping would be required.
+ * 0 should be returned otherwise. Please note that notifiers that can
+ * fail invalidate_range_start are not allowed to implement
+ * invalidate_range_end, as there is no mechanism for informing the
+ * notifier that its start failed.
*/
int (*invalidate_range_start)(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
const struct mmu_notifier_range *range);
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c~mm-mmu_notifiers-esnure-range_end-is-paired-with-range_start
+++ a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -501,10 +501,33 @@ static int mn_hlist_invalidate_range_sta
"");
WARN_ON(mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) ||
_ret != -EAGAIN);
+ /*
+ * We call all the notifiers on any EAGAIN,
+ * there is no way for a notifier to know if
+ * its start method failed, thus a start that
+ * does EAGAIN can't also do end.
+ */
+ WARN_ON(ops->invalidate_range_end);
ret = _ret;
}
}
}
+
+ if (ret) {
+ /*
+ * Must be non-blocking to get here. If there are multiple
+ * notifiers and one or more failed start, any that succeeded
+ * start are expecting their end to be called. Do so now.
+ */
+ hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(subscription, &subscriptions->list,
+ hlist, srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
+ if (!subscription->ops->invalidate_range_end)
+ continue;
+
+ subscription->ops->invalidate_range_end(subscription,
+ range);
+ }
+ }
srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
return ret;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx are
