On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:46:08PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 08:23:18PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 12:47, Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 08:09:16AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 06:08:04PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > It is unsafe to dump vmalloc area information when trying to do so from
> > > > > some contexts. Add a safer trylock version of the same function to do a
> > > > > best-effort VMA finding and use it from vmalloc_dump_obj().
> > > >
> > > > It'd be nice to have more details as to precisely which contexts and what this
> > > > resolves.
> > >
> > > True. I was hoping the 'trylock' mention would be sufficient (example hardirq
> > > context interrupting a lock-held region) but you're right.
> > >
> > > > > [applied test robot feedback on unused function fix.]
> > > > > [applied Uladzislau feedback on locking.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Fixes: 98f180837a89 ("mm: Make mem_dump_obj() handle vmalloc() memory")
> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > mm/vmalloc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > index 93cf99aba335..2c6a0e2ff404 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > @@ -4274,14 +4274,32 @@ void pcpu_free_vm_areas(struct vm_struct **vms, int nr_vms)
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> > > > > bool vmalloc_dump_obj(void *object)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - struct vm_struct *vm;
> > > > > void *objp = (void *)PAGE_ALIGN((unsigned long)object);
> > > > > + const void *caller;
> > > > > + struct vm_struct *vm;
> > > > > + struct vmap_area *va;
> > > > > + unsigned long addr;
> > > > > + unsigned int nr_pages;
> > > > >
> > > > > - vm = find_vm_area(objp);
> > > > > - if (!vm)
> > > > > + if (!spin_trylock(&vmap_area_lock))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > It'd be good to have a comment here explaining why we must trylock here. I am
> > > > also concerned that in the past this function would return false only if the
> > > > address was not a vmalloc one, but now it might just return false due to lock
> > > > contention and the user has no idea which it is?
> > > >
> > > > I'd want to at least output "vmalloc region cannot lookup lock contention"
> > > > vs. the below cannot find case.
> > >
> > > In the patch 2/2 we do print if the address looks like a vmalloc address even
> > > if the vmalloc look up fails.
> >
> > No, you output exactly what was output before, only changing what it
> > means and in no way differentiating between couldn't find vmalloc
> > area/couldn't get lock.
>
> 2/2 does this:
> - if (virt_addr_valid(object))
> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(object))
> + type = "vmalloc memory";
> + else if (virt_addr_valid(object))
> type = "non-slab/vmalloc memory";
>
> This code is executed only if vmalloc_dump_obj() returns false. The
> is_vmalloc_addr() was added by 2/2 which is newly added right?
>
> You are right we are not differentiating between trylock failure and failure to
> find the vmalloc area. I was just saying, even though we don't differentiate,
> we do print "vmalloc memory" right? That wasn't being printed before.
>
> > > Also the reporter's usecase is not a common one. We only attempt to dump
> > > information if there was a debug objects failure (example if somebody did a
> > > double call_rcu). In such a situation, the patch will prevent a deadlock and
> > > still print something about the address.
> >
> > Right, but the function still purports to do X but does Y.
> >
> > >
> > > > Under heavy lock contention aren't you potentially breaking the ability to
> > > > introspect vmalloc addresses? Wouldn't it be better to explicitly detect the
> > > > contexts under which acquiring this spinlock is not appropriate?
> > >
> > > Yes this is a good point, but there's another case as well: PREEMPT_RT can
> > > sleep on lock contention (as spinlocks are sleeping) and we can't sleep from
> > > call_rcu() as it may be called in contexts that cannot sleep. So we handle
> > > that also using trylock.
> >
> > Right so somebody now has to find this email to realise that. I hate
> > implicit knowledge like this, it needs a comment. It also furthers the
> > point that it'd be useful to differentiate between the two.
>
> This is a valid point, and I acknowledged it in last email. A code comment could
> indeed be useful.
Thanks, yeah this may seem trivial, but I am quite sensitive about things
being added to the code base that are neither described in commit msg nor
in a comment or elsewhere and become 'implicit' in a sense.
So just a simple comment here would be helpful, and I'm glad we're in
agreement on that, will leave to you to do a follow up patch.
>
> So I guess from an agreement standpoint, I agree:
>
> 1/2 could use an additional comment explaining why we need trylock (sighting
> the RT sleeping lock issue).
>
> 2/2 could update the existing code to convert "non-slab/vmalloc" to
> "non-slab/non-vmalloc". Note: that's an *existing* issue.
Yeah sorry this whole thing was rather confusing, it did indeed (unclearly)
specify non-/non- in the past (on assumption dumping function would work),
addition of vmalloc check now makes that correct again, the phrasing is the
issue.
You can leave this as-is as yeah, you're right, this was a pre-existing issue.
virt_addr_valid() returns true for a slab addr, but kmem_valid_obj() is
checked above so already been ruled out, now you ruled out vmalloc.
Just a bit tricksy.
>
> The issue in 2/2 is not a new one so that can certainly be a separate patch.
> And while at it, we could update the comment in that patch as well.
>
> But the whole differentiating between trylock vs vmalloc area lookup failure
> is not that useful -- just my opinion fwiw! I honestly feel differentiating
> between trylock vs vmalloc area lookup failure complicates the code because
> it will require passing this information down from vmalloc_dump_obj() to the
> caller AFAICS and I am not sure if the person reading the debug will really
> care much. But I am OK with whatever the -mm community wants and I am happy
> to send out a new patch on top with the above that I agree on since Andrew
> took these 2 (but for the stuff I don't agree, I would appreciate if you
> could send a patch for review and I am happy to review it!).
Ah right, I think maybe I wasn't clear, all I meant to suggest is to output
log output rather than feed anything back to caller, something like:-
if (!spin_trylock(&vmap_area_lock)) {
pr_cont(" [couldn't acquire vmap lock]\n");
...
}
My concern is that in the past this function would only return false if it
couldn't find the address in a VA, now it returns false also if you happen
to call it when the spinlock is locked, which might be confusing for
somebody debugging this.
HOWEVER, since you now indicate that the address is vmalloc anyway, and you
_absolutely cannot_ give any further details safely, perhaps this
additional information is indeed not that usful.
My concern was just feeling antsy that we suddenly don't do something
because a lock happens to be applied but as you say that cannot be helped
in certain contexts.
So actually, leave this.
>
> As you mentioned, this series is a stability fix and we can put touch-ups on
> top of it if needed, and there is also plenty of time till the next merge
> window. Allow me a few days and I'll do the new patch on top (I'd say dont
> bother to spend your time on it, I'll do it).
Ack, I was just a little frustrated we didn't reach a resolution on review
(either deciding things could be deferred or having changes) before
merge. Obviously fine to prioritise, but would be good to have that
explicitly stated.
>
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
>
> >
> >
Anyway, so TL;DR:-
1. As we both agree, add a comment to explain why you need the spin trylock.
(there are no further steps :P)
And I don't believe this actually needs any further changes after this
discussion*, so if you fancy doing a follow up to that effect that will
suffice for me thanks!
* Though I strongly feel vmalloc as a whole needs top-to-bottom
refactoring, but that's another story...
