| Message ID | 20220309091449.2753904-1-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] mm/hwpoison: set PageHWPoison after taking page lock in memory_failure_hugetlb() | expand |
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:14:49 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, What are the runtime effects of this? Do we think a -stable backport is needed? Are we missing a reported-by here? I'm too lazy to hunt down who it was.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > --- > mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > int res; > unsigned long page_flags; > > - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { > - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", > - pfn); > - res = -EHWPOISON; > - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > - return res; > - } > - > - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > - > if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { > res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? __get_hwpoison_page() head = compound_head(page) hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is not in that 2M range? > if (!res) { > lock_page(head); > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > unlock_page(head); > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > } > @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > page_flags = head->flags; > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > put_page(p); > res = -EOPNOTSUPP; > goto out; > } > > + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) And I don't think "head" is still the head you expected if the race happened. I think we need to re-retrieve the head once the page refcount is bumped and locked. > + goto already_hwpoisoned; > + > + num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > + > /* > * TODO: hwpoison for pud-sized hugetlb doesn't work right now, so > * simply disable it. In order to make it work properly, we need > @@ -1576,6 +1566,13 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > out: > unlock_page(head); > return res; > +already_hwpoisoned: > + unlock_page(head); > + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn); > + res = -EHWPOISON; > + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > + res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > + return res; > } > > static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags, > -- > 2.25.1 >
On 3/9/22 13:55, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi > <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: >> >> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> >> >> There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb >> free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page >> (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed >> or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in >> killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, >> >> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> >> --- >> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c >> index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 >> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c >> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c >> @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) >> int res; >> unsigned long page_flags; >> >> - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { >> - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", >> - pfn); >> - res = -EHWPOISON; >> - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) >> - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); >> - return res; >> - } >> - >> - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); >> - >> if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { >> res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); > > I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this > could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? > > __get_hwpoison_page() > head = compound_head(page) > > hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) > get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); > > > Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is > not in that 2M range? That is correct. It is also possible that __free_pages(page, huge_page_order(h)) could have been called during this window. So IIUC, head would have an increased ref count and pages would be freed to buddy when the memory error code drops the ref. At that time, head would be marked as poisoned which could be different than actual page with poison. An increased ref count, or page lock will not prevent hugetlb page demotion or (attempting) to free to buddy today. There is already a patch in Andrew's tree to not demote hugetlb pages marked with poison. This at least makes the demote code perform the same check as allocation code. The race which started this discussion has been there for a while. demotion opened another window, but that is now closed. IMO, it would be better to take a step back and look at the overall design and decide how to proceed. There is also an effort underway to provide double mapping of hugetlb pages, and one of the target use cases is memory error handling. This effort is in the very early stages, but it will certainly require setting poison on the (sub-)page with actual error rather than head page. Perhaps something like what is done for THP today. Nothing to address yet, but I just wanted to note there will be future changes in this area.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:55:30PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi > <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > > > > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > > (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > > or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > > killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > > > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > > --- > > mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > > index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 > > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > > @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > int res; > > unsigned long page_flags; > > > > - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { > > - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", > > - pfn); > > - res = -EHWPOISON; > > - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > > - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > > - return res; > > - } > > - > > - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > > - > > if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { > > res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); > > I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this > could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? > > __get_hwpoison_page() > head = compound_head(page) > > hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) > get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); Thanks for the comment. I assume Miaohe's patch below introduces additional check to detect the race. The patch calls compound_head() for the raw error page again, so the demotion case should be detected. I'll make the dependency clear in the commit log. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220228140245.24552-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com/ > > > Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is > not in that 2M range? > > > > if (!res) { > > lock_page(head); > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > > unlock_page(head); > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > } > > @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > page_flags = head->flags; > > > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > > put_page(p); > > res = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > goto out; > > } > > > > + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) > > And I don't think "head" is still the head you expected if the race > happened. I think we need to re-retrieve the head once the page > refcount is bumped and locked. I think the above justification works for this. When the kernel reaches this line, the hugepage is properly pinned without being freed or demoted, so "head" is still pointing to the same head page as expected. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi > > > + goto already_hwpoisoned; > > + > > + num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > > + > > /* > > * TODO: hwpoison for pud-sized hugetlb doesn't work right now, so > > * simply disable it. In order to make it work properly, we need > > @@ -1576,6 +1566,13 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > out: > > unlock_page(head); > > return res; > > +already_hwpoisoned: > > + unlock_page(head); > > + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn); > > + res = -EHWPOISON; > > + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > > + res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > > + return res; > > } > > > > static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags, > > -- > > 2.25.1 > >
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 03:59:55PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 3/9/22 13:55, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi > > <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > >> > >> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > >> > >> There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > >> free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > >> (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > >> or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > >> killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > >> --- > >> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > >> index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 > >> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > >> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > >> @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > >> int res; > >> unsigned long page_flags; > >> > >> - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { > >> - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", > >> - pfn); > >> - res = -EHWPOISON; > >> - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > >> - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > >> - return res; > >> - } > >> - > >> - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > >> - > >> if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { > >> res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); > > > > I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this > > could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? > > > > __get_hwpoison_page() > > head = compound_head(page) > > > > hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) > > get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); > > > > > > Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is > > not in that 2M range? > > That is correct. > > It is also possible that __free_pages(page, huge_page_order(h)) could have > been called during this window. So IIUC, head would have an increased ref > count and pages would be freed to buddy when the memory error code drops the > ref. At that time, head would be marked as poisoned which could be different > than actual page with poison. > > An increased ref count, or page lock will not prevent hugetlb page demotion > or (attempting) to free to buddy today. Sorry, I misread the above race in my previous email. I rethink better solution to cover this. > > There is already a patch in Andrew's tree to not demote hugetlb pages marked > with poison. This at least makes the demote code perform the same check as > allocation code. The race which started this discussion has been there for > a while. demotion opened another window, but that is now closed. > > IMO, it would be better to take a step back and look at the overall design > and decide how to proceed. There is also an effort underway to provide double > mapping of hugetlb pages, and one of the target use cases is memory error > handling. This effort is in the very early stages, but it will certainly > require setting poison on the (sub-)page with actual error rather than > head page. Someone mentioned the similar point when discussing "freeing vmemmap pages for hugetlb" patchset, and there was an idea that actual error page is stored in private field in the first tail page instead of using PG_hwpoison on raw subpages. That sounds good to me. > Perhaps something like what is done for THP today. Nothing to > address yet, but I just wanted to note there will be future changes in this > area. Thanks for the comment. - Naoya Horiguchi
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:01 PM HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:55:30PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi > > <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > > > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > > > > > > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > > > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > > > (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > > > or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > > > killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > > > --- > > > mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > > > index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 > > > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > > > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > > > @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > > int res; > > > unsigned long page_flags; > > > > > > - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { > > > - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", > > > - pfn); > > > - res = -EHWPOISON; > > > - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > > > - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > > > - return res; > > > - } > > > - > > > - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > > > - > > > if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { > > > res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); > > > > I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this > > could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? > > > > __get_hwpoison_page() > > head = compound_head(page) > > > > hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) > > get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); > > Thanks for the comment. > I assume Miaohe's patch below introduces additional check to detect the > race. The patch calls compound_head() for the raw error page again, so > the demotion case should be detected. I'll make the dependency clear in > the commit log. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220228140245.24552-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com/ > > > > > > > Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is > > not in that 2M range? > > > > > > > if (!res) { > > > lock_page(head); > > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > > > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > > > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > > > unlock_page(head); > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > } > > > @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > > page_flags = head->flags; > > > > > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > > > - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > > > - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > > > put_page(p); > > > res = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > > > + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) > > > > And I don't think "head" is still the head you expected if the race > > happened. I think we need to re-retrieve the head once the page > > refcount is bumped and locked. > > I think the above justification works for this. > When the kernel reaches this line, the hugepage is properly pinned without being > freed or demoted, so "head" is still pointing to the same head page as expected. I think Mike's comment in the earlier email works for this too. The huge page may get demoted before the page is pinned and locked, so the actual hwpoisoned subpage may belong to another smaller huge page now. > > Thanks, > Naoya Horiguchi > > > > > > + goto already_hwpoisoned; > > > + > > > + num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > > > + > > > /* > > > * TODO: hwpoison for pud-sized hugetlb doesn't work right now, so > > > * simply disable it. In order to make it work properly, we need > > > @@ -1576,6 +1566,13 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > > out: > > > unlock_page(head); > > > return res; > > > +already_hwpoisoned: > > > + unlock_page(head); > > > + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn); > > > + res = -EHWPOISON; > > > + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > > > + res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > > > + return res; > > > } > > > > > > static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags, > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > >
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:30:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:14:49 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > > > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > > (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > > or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > > killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > > What are the runtime effects of this? Do we think a -stable backport > is needed? The actual user-visible effect might be obscure because even if memory_failure() works as expected, some random process could be killed. The actual error is left unhandled, so no one prevents later access to it, which might lead to more serious results like consuming corrupted data. So I think that this is worth sending -stable backport. But unfortunately this patch still needs update, could you drop this from mmotm for a while? > > Are we missing a reported-by here? I'm too lazy to hunt down who it was. I noticed this by Mike's comment, so I'll add his reported-by. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi
On 2022/3/10 8:30, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:01 PM HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) > <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:55:30PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi >>> <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> >>>> >>>> There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb >>>> free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page >>>> (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed >>>> or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in >>>> killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> >>>> --- >>>> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c >>>> index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c >>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c >>>> @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) >>>> int res; >>>> unsigned long page_flags; >>>> >>>> - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { >>>> - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", >>>> - pfn); >>>> - res = -EHWPOISON; >>>> - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) >>>> - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); >>>> - return res; >>>> - } >>>> - >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); >>>> - >>>> if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { >>>> res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); >>> >>> I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this >>> could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? >>> >>> __get_hwpoison_page() >>> head = compound_head(page) >>> >>> hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) >>> get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); >> >> Thanks for the comment. >> I assume Miaohe's patch below introduces additional check to detect the >> race. The patch calls compound_head() for the raw error page again, so >> the demotion case should be detected. I'll make the dependency clear in >> the commit log. >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220228140245.24552-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com/ >> >>> >>> >>> Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is >>> not in that 2M range? >>> >>> >>>> if (!res) { >>>> lock_page(head); >>>> if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { >>>> - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); >>>> unlock_page(head); >>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>> } >>>> @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) >>>> page_flags = head->flags; >>>> >>>> if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { >>>> - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); >>>> put_page(p); >>>> res = -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>> goto out; >>>> } >>>> >>>> + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) >>> >>> And I don't think "head" is still the head you expected if the race >>> happened. I think we need to re-retrieve the head once the page >>> refcount is bumped and locked. >> >> I think the above justification works for this. >> When the kernel reaches this line, the hugepage is properly pinned without being >> freed or demoted, so "head" is still pointing to the same head page as expected. > > I think Mike's comment in the earlier email works for this too. The > huge page may get demoted before the page is pinned and locked, so the > actual hwpoisoned subpage may belong to another smaller huge page now. > I thinks Naoya assumes that there is a check before we use "head": diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c index 5444a8ef4867..0d7c58340a98 100644 --- a/mm/memory-failure.c +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c @@ -1534,6 +1534,17 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) } lock_page(head); + + /** + * The page could have changed compound pages due to race window. + * If this happens just bail out. + */ + if (!PageHuge(p) || compound_head(p) != head) { + action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_DIFFERENT_COMPOUND, MF_IGNORED); + res = -EBUSY; + goto out; + } + page_flags = head->flags; if (hwpoison_filter(p)) {
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:24 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote: > > On 2022/3/10 8:30, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:01 PM HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) > > <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:55:30PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Naoya Horiguchi > >>> <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > >>>> > >>>> There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb > >>>> free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page > >>>> (which was a hugetlb when memory_failrue() was called, but was removed > >>>> or demoted when memory_failure_hugetlb() is called). This results in > >>>> killing wrong processes. So set PageHWPoison flag with holding page lock, > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 ++++++++++++--------------- > >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > >>>> index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 > >>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > >>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > >>>> @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > >>>> int res; > >>>> unsigned long page_flags; > >>>> > >>>> - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { > >>>> - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", > >>>> - pfn); > >>>> - res = -EHWPOISON; > >>>> - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > >>>> - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > >>>> - return res; > >>>> - } > >>>> - > >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > >>>> - > >>>> if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { > >>>> res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); > >>> > >>> I'm not an expert of hugetlb, I may be wrong. I'm wondering how this > >>> could solve the race? Is the below race still possible? > >>> > >>> __get_hwpoison_page() > >>> head = compound_head(page) > >>> > >>> hugetlb demotion (1G --> 2M) > >>> get_hwpoison_huge_page(head, &hugetlb); > >> > >> Thanks for the comment. > >> I assume Miaohe's patch below introduces additional check to detect the > >> race. The patch calls compound_head() for the raw error page again, so > >> the demotion case should be detected. I'll make the dependency clear in > >> the commit log. > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220228140245.24552-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com/ > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Then the head may point to a 2M page, but the hwpoisoned subpage is > >>> not in that 2M range? > >>> > >>> > >>>> if (!res) { > >>>> lock_page(head); > >>>> if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > >>>> - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > >>>> unlock_page(head); > >>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP; > >>>> } > >>>> @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > >>>> page_flags = head->flags; > >>>> > >>>> if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > >>>> - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) > >>>> - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); > >>>> put_page(p); > >>>> res = -EOPNOTSUPP; > >>>> goto out; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) > >>> > >>> And I don't think "head" is still the head you expected if the race > >>> happened. I think we need to re-retrieve the head once the page > >>> refcount is bumped and locked. > >> > >> I think the above justification works for this. > >> When the kernel reaches this line, the hugepage is properly pinned without being > >> freed or demoted, so "head" is still pointing to the same head page as expected. > > > > I think Mike's comment in the earlier email works for this too. The > > huge page may get demoted before the page is pinned and locked, so the > > actual hwpoisoned subpage may belong to another smaller huge page now. > > > > I thinks Naoya assumes that there is a check before we use "head": > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > index 5444a8ef4867..0d7c58340a98 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > @@ -1534,6 +1534,17 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > } > > lock_page(head); > + > + /** > + * The page could have changed compound pages due to race window. > + * If this happens just bail out. > + */ > + if (!PageHuge(p) || compound_head(p) != head) { > + action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_DIFFERENT_COMPOUND, MF_IGNORED); > + res = -EBUSY; > + goto out; > + } > + > page_flags = head->flags; > > if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { > -- > from: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220228140245.24552-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com/ Aha, thanks, I missed that. Yeah, we definitely need to revalidate the page. > > Thanks. > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Naoya Horiguchi > >> > >>> > >>>> + goto already_hwpoisoned; > >>>> + > >>>> + num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > >>>> + > >>>> /* > >>>> * TODO: hwpoison for pud-sized hugetlb doesn't work right now, so > >>>> * simply disable it. In order to make it work properly, we need > >>>> @@ -1576,6 +1566,13 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > >>>> out: > >>>> unlock_page(head); > >>>> return res; > >>>> +already_hwpoisoned: > >>>> + unlock_page(head); > >>>> + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn); > >>>> + res = -EHWPOISON; > >>>> + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) > >>>> + res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); > >>>> + return res; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags, > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.25.1 > >>>> > > . > > >
diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c index ac6492e36978..fe25eee8f9d6 100644 --- a/mm/memory-failure.c +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c @@ -1494,24 +1494,11 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) int res; unsigned long page_flags; - if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) { - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", - pfn); - res = -EHWPOISON; - if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) - res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); - return res; - } - - num_poisoned_pages_inc(); - if (!(flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)) { res = get_hwpoison_page(p, flags); if (!res) { lock_page(head); if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); unlock_page(head); return -EOPNOTSUPP; } @@ -1544,13 +1531,16 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) page_flags = head->flags; if (hwpoison_filter(p)) { - if (TestClearPageHWPoison(head)) - num_poisoned_pages_dec(); put_page(p); res = -EOPNOTSUPP; goto out; } + if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) + goto already_hwpoisoned; + + num_poisoned_pages_inc(); + /* * TODO: hwpoison for pud-sized hugetlb doesn't work right now, so * simply disable it. In order to make it work properly, we need @@ -1576,6 +1566,13 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags) out: unlock_page(head); return res; +already_hwpoisoned: + unlock_page(head); + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn); + res = -EHWPOISON; + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) + res = kill_accessing_process(current, page_to_pfn(head), flags); + return res; } static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags,