On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:07:32 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:36 PM Gerald Schaefer
> <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:59:09 -0700
> > Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/11/22 12:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > If we ever get a write-fault on a write-protected page in a shared mapping,
> > > > we'd be in trouble (again). Instead, we can simply map the page writable.
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Reason is that uffd-wp doesn't clear the uffd-wp PTE bit when
> > > > unregistering and consequently keeps the PTE writeprotected. Reason for
> > > > this is to avoid the additional overhead when unregistering. Note
> > > > that this is the case also for !hugetlb and that we will end up with
> > > > writable PTEs that still have the uffd-wp PTE bit set once we return
> > > > from hugetlb_wp(). I'm not touching the uffd-wp PTE bit for now, because it
> > > > seems to be a generic thing -- wp_page_reuse() also doesn't clear it.
> > > >
> > > > VM_MAYSHARE handling in hugetlb_fault() for FAULT_FLAG_WRITE
> > > > indicates that MAP_SHARED handling was at least envisioned, but could never
> > > > have worked as expected.
> > > >
> > > > While at it, make sure that we never end up in hugetlb_wp() on write
> > > > faults without VM_WRITE, because we don't support maybe_mkwrite()
> > > > semantics as commonly used in the !hugetlb case -- for example, in
> > > > wp_page_reuse().
> > >
> > > Nit,
> > > to me 'make sure that we never end up in hugetlb_wp()' implies that
> > > we would check for condition in callers as opposed to first thing in
> > > hugetlb_wp(). However, I am OK with description as it.
> >
>
> Hi Gerald,
>
> > Is that new WARN_ON_ONCE() in hugetlb_wp() meant to indicate a real bug?
>
> Most probably, unless I am missing something important.
>
> Something triggers FAULT_FLAG_WRITE on a VMA without VM_WRITE and
> hugetlb_wp() would map the pte writable.
> Consequently, we'd have a writable pte inside a VMA that does not have
> write permissions, which is dubious. My check prevents that and bails
> out.
>
> Ordinary (!hugetlb) faults have maybe_mkwrite() (e.g., for FOLL_FORCE
> or breaking COW) semantics such that we won't be mapping PTEs writable
> if the VMA does not have write permissions.
>
> I suspect that either
>
> a) Some write fault misses a protection check and ends up triggering a
> FAULT_FLAG_WRITE where we should actually fail early.
>
> b) The write fault is valid and some VMA misses proper flags (VM_WRITE).
>
> c) The write fault is valid (e.g., for breaking COW or FOLL_FORCE) and
> we'd actually want maybe_mkwrite semantics.
>
> > It is triggered by libhugetlbfs testcase "HUGETLB_ELFMAP=R linkhuge_rw"
> > (at least on s390), and crashes our CI, because it runs with panic_on_warn
> > enabled.
> >
> > Not sure if this means that we have bug elsewhere, allowing us to
> > get to the WARN in hugetlb_wp().
>
> That's what I suspect. Do you have a backtrace?
Sure, forgot to send it with initial reply...
[ 82.574749] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 82.574751] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 1674 at mm/hugetlb.c:5264 hugetlb_wp+0x3be/0x818
[ 82.574759] Modules linked in: nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat nf_nat nf_conntrack nf_defrag_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv4 ip_set nf_tables nfnetlink sunrpc uvdevice s390_trng vfio_ccw mdev vfio_iommu_type1 eadm_sch vfio zcrypt_cex4 sch_fq_codel configfs ghash_s390 prng chacha_s390 libchacha aes_s390 des_s390 libdes sha3_512_s390 sha3_256_s390 sha512_s390 sha256_s390 sha1_s390 sha_common pkey zcrypt rng_core autofs4
[ 82.574785] CPU: 9 PID: 1674 Comm: linkhuge_rw Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.19.0-next-20220815 #36
[ 82.574787] Hardware name: IBM 3931 A01 704 (LPAR)
[ 82.574788] Krnl PSW : 0704c00180000000 00000006c9d4bc6a (hugetlb_wp+0x3c2/0x818)
[ 82.574791] R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:0 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3
[ 82.574794] Krnl GPRS: 000000000227c000 0000000008640071 0000000000000000 0000000001200000
[ 82.574796] 0000000001200000 00000000b5a98090 0000000000000255 00000000adb2c898
[ 82.574797] 0000000000000000 00000000adb2c898 0000000001200000 00000000b5a98090
[ 82.574799] 000000008c408000 0000000092fd7300 000003800339bc10 000003800339baf8
[ 82.574803] Krnl Code: 00000006c9d4bc5c: f160000407fe mvo 4(7,%r0),2046(1,%r0)
00000006c9d4bc62: 47000700 bc 0,1792
#00000006c9d4bc66: af000000 mc 0,0
>00000006c9d4bc6a: a7a80040 lhi %r10,64
00000006c9d4bc6e: b916002a llgfr %r2,%r10
00000006c9d4bc72: eb6ff1600004 lmg %r6,%r15,352(%r15)
00000006c9d4bc78: 07fe bcr 15,%r14
00000006c9d4bc7a: 47000700 bc 0,1792
[ 82.574814] Call Trace:
[ 82.574842] [<00000006c9d4bc6a>] hugetlb_wp+0x3c2/0x818
[ 82.574846] [<00000006c9d4c62e>] hugetlb_no_page+0x56e/0x5a8
[ 82.574848] [<00000006c9d4cac2>] hugetlb_fault+0x45a/0x590
[ 82.574850] [<00000006c9d06d4a>] handle_mm_fault+0x182/0x220
[ 82.574855] [<00000006c9a9d70e>] do_exception+0x19e/0x470
[ 82.574858] [<00000006c9a9dff2>] do_dat_exception+0x2a/0x50
[ 82.574861] [<00000006ca668a18>] __do_pgm_check+0xf0/0x1b0
[ 82.574866] [<00000006ca677b3c>] pgm_check_handler+0x11c/0x170
[ 82.574870] Last Breaking-Event-Address:
[ 82.574871] [<00000006c9d4b926>] hugetlb_wp+0x7e/0x818
[ 82.574873] Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ...
[ 82.574875] CPU: 9 PID: 1674 Comm: linkhuge_rw Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.19.0-next-20220815 #36
[ 82.574877] Hardware name: IBM 3931 A01 704 (LPAR)
[ 82.574878] Call Trace:
[ 82.574879] [<00000006ca664f22>] dump_stack_lvl+0x62/0x80
[ 82.574881] [<00000006ca657af8>] panic+0x118/0x300
[ 82.574884] [<00000006c9ac3da6>] __warn+0xb6/0x160
[ 82.574887] [<00000006ca29b1ea>] report_bug+0xba/0x140
[ 82.574890] [<00000006c9a75194>] monitor_event_exception+0x44/0x80
[ 82.574892] [<00000006ca668a18>] __do_pgm_check+0xf0/0x1b0
[ 82.574894] [<00000006ca677b3c>] pgm_check_handler+0x11c/0x170
[ 82.574897] [<00000006c9d4bc6a>] hugetlb_wp+0x3c2/0x818
[ 82.574899] [<00000006c9d4c62e>] hugetlb_no_page+0x56e/0x5a8
[ 82.574901] [<00000006c9d4cac2>] hugetlb_fault+0x45a/0x590
[ 82.574903] [<00000006c9d06d4a>] handle_mm_fault+0x182/0x220
[ 82.574906] [<00000006c9a9d70e>] do_exception+0x19e/0x470
[ 82.574907] [<00000006c9a9dff2>] do_dat_exception+0x2a/0x50
[ 82.574909] [<00000006ca668a18>] __do_pgm_check+0xf0/0x1b0
[ 82.574912] [<00000006ca677b3c>] pgm_check_handler+0x11c/0x170
There are also some "User process fault" messages before that, but those
seem to be expected by the nature of that linhuge_rw tests, i.e. they are
not new and also showed before. This is why I assumed it could be just
some weird user space logic, triggering that new WARN_ON_ONCE.
