From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801EBC2BA4C for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241015AbiAZL5b (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 06:57:31 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:55198 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241014AbiAZL50 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 06:57:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1643198246; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=w6RnHqBRXKKY9foSrt7oGpZU3YcqPco8hnhwfG4iwHA=; b=i4G4WZ0tirLMAHvFJriEFdW6HM+JgVi0y//VVEaYaDrCO3UfeZ0NbkT1BKGn5voFL0j5UA lcv9VIEGcApAKREO4KhqQub4zjO8RWavIparQcd6EOXjHh5xE1AZ+RHoiAXvNwobgq1XlR Ss+ggWc4Ev+4cQoZOpvYFOul5n5zPlg= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-546-hulahPkiM0STAVb1TWOgrw-1; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 06:57:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: hulahPkiM0STAVb1TWOgrw-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id f7-20020a1cc907000000b0034b63f314ccso3168106wmb.6 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:57:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:subject :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w6RnHqBRXKKY9foSrt7oGpZU3YcqPco8hnhwfG4iwHA=; b=ZA4i5M0gK1JwBeB0+kmQNcYwLoN5i818zWnd91obfkv/TBE4T2TD/I1zoR2m1LV7vf usHysmCOpfh4ud6aoSN2o6R62jE8YtvGIR9e22qFSGksJZZWbMAEE2ykHa+Cs4HAQyZB sGGhl3U5mC/gg8bwi7f97EH0huOoiB3jI3XlKTk2qmv5pvKb1lhxPPIerUpHj/CIG63Y rzQJ8Edy3u+/Cw5Mm5SMKEENXwnfFGPQWDrudZ/WuGVgHuJLGC34HvTQiIYPsk9kQRWA /A1dXDHfo0qe3oYzD1/73BkZSyRyoOLwjofcOW7hxgnZ4jOReSF3o9WZgdJKg/sJGVdp Tg2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531z0dUOj5NueX5r5Vshy1APWr+rccxBj6Xl9mav/PvmK2JAJ3ZU Q+YRbqk/3X8M5jIAPD8/BI05yDT+Vw+KDlaUcbZl2LfTp0iQxQGAB4mM9naNLXhvmvCuxIMRPlW 3q1VrN4PS9d7teRqA5AWkNUcr X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4d1a:: with SMTP id o26mr6951708wmh.147.1643198243813; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:57:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFqWDLyjsg3RrLRRoSoX6kG2G3W4KJXWCYT79Oj2x6eCRVWsW/D6F8N8lsymC4hoPPnF9nLw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4d1a:: with SMTP id o26mr6951692wmh.147.1643198243564; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c709:2700:cdd8:dcb0:2a69:8783? (p200300cbc7092700cdd8dcb02a698783.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c709:2700:cdd8:dcb0:2a69:8783]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g7sm3923134wmq.28.2022.01.26.03.57.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:57:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5b4e2c29-8f1a-5a68-d243-a30467cc02d4@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:57:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Jann Horn Cc: Yang Shi , kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20220120202805.3369-1-shy828301@gmail.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] fs/proc: task_mmu.c: don't read mapcount for migration entry In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 26.01.22 12:48, Jann Horn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:38 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 26.01.22 12:29, Jann Horn wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:51 AM David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 20.01.22 21:28, Yang Shi wrote: >>>>> The syzbot reported the below BUG: >>>>> >>>>> kernel BUG at include/linux/page-flags.h:785! > [...] >>>>> RIP: 0010:PageDoubleMap include/linux/page-flags.h:785 [inline] >>>>> RIP: 0010:__page_mapcount+0x2d2/0x350 mm/util.c:744 > [...] >>>> Does this point at the bigger issue that reading the mapcount without >>>> having the page locked is completely unstable? >>> >>> (See also https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAG48ez0M=iwJu=Q8yUQHD-+eZDg6ZF8QCF86Sb=CN1petP=Y0Q@mail.gmail.com/ >>> for context.) >> >> Thanks for the pointer. >> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by "unstable". Do you mean "the result is >>> not guaranteed to still be valid when the call returns", "the result >>> might not have ever been valid", or "the call might crash because the >>> page's state as a compound page is unstable"? >> >> A little bit of everything :) > [...] >>> In case you mean "the result might not have ever been valid": >>> Yes, even with this patch applied, in theory concurrent THP splits >>> could cause us to count some page mappings twice. Arguably that's not >>> entirely correct. >> >> Yes, the snapshot is not atomic and, thereby, unreliable. That what I >> mostly meant as "unstable". >> >>> >>> In case you mean "the call might crash because the page's state as a >>> compound page could concurrently change": >> >> I think that's just a side-product of the snapshot not being "correct", >> right? > > I guess you could see it that way? The way I look at it is that > page_mapcount() is designed to return a number that's at least as high > as the number of mappings (rarely higher due to races), and using > page_mapcount() on an unlocked page is legitimate if you're fine with > the rare double-counting of references. In my view, the problem here > is: > > There are different types of references to "struct page" - some of > them allow you to call page_mapcount(), some don't. And in particular, > get_page() doesn't give you a reference that can be used with > page_mapcount(), but locking a (real, non-migration) PTE pointing to > the page does give you such a reference. I assume the point is that as long as the page cannot be unmapped because you block it from getting unmapped (PT lock), the compound page cannot get split. As long as the page cannot get unmapped from that page table you should have at least a mapcount of 1. But yeah, using the mapcount of a page that is not even mapped (migration entry) is clearly wrong. To summarize: reading the mapcount on an unlocked page will easily return a wrong result and the result should not be relied upon. reading the mapcount of a migration entry is dangerous and certainly wrong. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb