Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm/hugetlb: fix races when looking up a CONT-PTE size hugetlb page

[Mike Kravetz]

On 08/25/22 09:43, Baolin Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/25/2022 7:34 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 08/24/22 17:41, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 8/24/2022 3:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > IMHO, these follow_huge_xxx() functions are arch-specified at first and
> > > > > > > > were moved into the common hugetlb.c by commit 9e5fc74c3025 ("mm:
> > > > > > > > hugetlb: Copy general hugetlb code from x86 to mm"), and now there are
> > > > > > > > still some arch-specified follow_huge_xxx() definition, for example:
> > > > > > > > ia64: follow_huge_addr
> > > > > > > > powerpc: follow_huge_pd
> > > > > > > > s390: follow_huge_pud
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What I mean is that follow_hugetlb_page() is a common and
> > > > > > > > not-arch-specified function, is it suitable to change it to be
> > > > > > > > arch-specified?
> > > > > > > > And thinking more, can we rename follow_hugetlb_page() as
> > > > > > > > hugetlb_page_faultin() and simplify it to only handle the page faults of
> > > > > > > > hugetlb like the faultin_page() for normal page? That means we can make
> > > > > > > > sure only follow_page_mask() can handle hugetlb.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Something like that might work, but you still have two page table walkers
> > > > > > for hugetlb.  I like David's idea (if I understand it correctly) of
> > > > > 
> > > > > What I mean is we may change the hugetlb handling like normal page:
> > > > > 1) use follow_page_mask() to look up a hugetlb firstly.
> > > > > 2) if can not get the hugetlb, then try to page fault by
> > > > > hugetlb_page_faultin().
> > > > > 3) if page fault successed, then retry to find hugetlb by
> > > > > follow_page_mask().
> > > > 
> > > > That implies putting more hugetlbfs special code into generic GUP,
> > > > turning it even more complicated. But of course, it depends on how the
> > > > end result looks like. My gut feeling was that hugetlb is better handled
> > > > in follow_hugetlb_page() separately (just like we do with a lot of other
> > > > page table walkers).
> > > 
> > > OK, fair enough.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just a rough thought, and I need more investigation for my idea and
> > > > > David's idea.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > using follow_hugetlb_page for both cases.  As noted, it will need to be
> > > > > > taught how to not trigger faults in the follow_page_mask case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyway, I also agree we need some cleanup, and firstly I think we should
> > > > > cleanup these arch-specified follow_huge_xxx() on some architectures
> > > > > which are similar with the common ones. I will look into these.
> > > > 
> > > > There was a recent discussion on that, e.g.:
> > > > 
> > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220818135717.609eef8a@thinkpad
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > However, considering cleanup may need more investigation and
> > > > > refactoring, now I prefer to make these bug-fix patches of this patchset
> > > > > into mainline firstly, which are suitable to backport to old version to
> > > > > fix potential race issues. Mike and David, how do you think? Could you
> > > > > help to review these patches? Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Patch #1 certainly add more special code just to handle another hugetlb
> > > > corner case (CONT pages), and maybe just making it all use
> > > > follow_hugetlb_page() would be even cleaner and less error prone.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that locking is shaky, but I'm not sure if we really want to
> > > > backport this to stable trees:
> > > > 
> > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> > > > 
> > > > "It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, “This could be a
> > > > problem...” type thing)."
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do we actually have any instance of this being a real (and not a
> > > > theoretical) problem? If not, I'd rather clean it all up right away.
> > > 
> > > I think this is a real problem (not theoretical), and easy to write some
> > > code to show the issue. For example, suppose thread A is trying to look up a
> > > CONT-PTE size hugetlb page under the lock, however antoher thread B can
> > > migrate the CONT-PTE hugetlb page at the same time, which will cause thread
> > > A to get an incorrect page, if thread A want to do something for this
> > > incorrect page, error occurs.
> > 
> > Is the primary concern the locking?  If so, I am not sure we have an issue.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > As mentioned in your commit message, current code will use
> > pte_offset_map_lock().  pte_offset_map_lock uses pte_lockptr, and pte_lockptr
> > will either be the mm wide lock or pmd_page lock.  To me, it seems that
> 
> The ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS can be always true on my machine, that means the
> pte_lockptr() will always use the PTE page lock, however huge_pte_lock()
> will use the mm wide lock.

Yes, the different calling context/path to the locking code will cause a
different lock to be used.  I thought of the AFTER sending the above.

> 
> > either would provide correct synchronization for CONT-PTE entries.  Am I
> > missing something or misreading the code?
> > 
> > I started looking at code cleanup suggested by David.  Here is a quick
> > patch (not tested and likely containing errors) to see if this is a step
> > in the right direction.
> > 
> > I like it because we get rid of/combine all those follow_huge_p*d
> > routines.
> 
> Great, this looks straight forward to me (some nits as below).
> David, how do you think?
> 

I will continue to refine this based on suggestions from you and David.

> > +struct page *hugetlb_follow_page_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +				unsigned long address, unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > +	struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > +	unsigned long haddr = address & huge_page_mask(h);
> > +	struct page *page = NULL;
> > +	spinlock_t *ptl;
> > +	pte_t *pte, entry;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * FOLL_PIN is not supported for follow_page(). Ordinary GUP goes via
> > +	 * follow_hugetlb_page().
> > +	 */
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & FOLL_PIN))
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, haddr, huge_page_size(h));
> > +	if (!pte)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +retry:
> > +	ptl = huge_pte_lock(h, mm, pte);
> > +	entry = huge_ptep_get(pte);
> > +	if (pte_present(entry)) {
> > +		page = pte_page(entry);
> 
> Should follow previous logic?
> page = pte_page(entry) + ((address & ~huge_page_mask(h)) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> 

Yes, this needs to be PAGE aligned, not HUGETLB_PAGE aligned.
-- 
Mike Kravetz

> > +		/*
> > +		 * try_grab_page() should always succeed here, because we hold
> > +		 * the ptl lock and have verified pte_present().
> > +		 */
> > +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!try_grab_page(page, flags))) {
> > +			page = NULL;
> > +			goto out;
> > +		}
> > +	} else {