The patch titled Subject: mm: let pte_lockptr() consume a pte_t pointer has been added to the -mm mm-hotfixes-unstable branch. Its filename is mm-let-pte_lockptr-consume-a-pte_t-pointer.patch
This patch will shortly appear at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches...
This patch will later appear in the mm-hotfixes-unstable branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------ From: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Subject: mm: let pte_lockptr() consume a pte_t pointer Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 20:39:54 +0200
Patch series "mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb vs. core-mm PT locking".
Working on another generic page table walker that tries to avoid special-casing hugetlb, I found a page table locking issue with hugetlb folios that are not mapped using a single PMD/PUD.
For some hugetlb folio sizes, GUP will take different page table locks when walking the page tables than hugetlb when modifying the page tables.
I did not actually try reproducing an issue, but looking at follow_pmd_mask() where we might be rereading a PMD value multiple times it's rather clear that concurrent modifications are rather unpleasant.
In follow_page_pte() we might be better in that regard -- ptep_get() does a READ_ONCE() -- but who knows what else could happen concurrently in some weird corner cases (e.g., hugetlb folio getting unmapped and freed).
This patch (of 2):
pte_lockptr() is the only *_lockptr() function that doesn't consume what would be expected: it consumes a pmd_t pointer instead of a pte_t pointer.
Let's change that. The two callers in pgtable-generic.c are easily adjusted. Adjust khugepaged.c:retract_page_tables() to simply do a pte_offset_map_nolock() to obtain the lock, even though we won't actually be traversing the page table.
This makes the code more similar to the other variants and avoids other hacks to make the new pte_lockptr() version happy. pte_lockptr() users reside now only in pgtable-generic.c.
Maybe, using pte_offset_map_nolock() is the right thing to do because the PTE table could have been removed in the meantime? At least it sounds more future proof if we ever have other means of page table reclaim.
It's not quite clear if holding the PTE table lock is really required: what if someone else obtains the lock just after we unlock it? But we'll leave that as is for now, maybe there are good reasons.
This is a preparation for adapting hugetlb page table locking logic to take the same locks as core-mm page table walkers would.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240725183955.2268884-1-david@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240725183955.2268884-2-david@redhat.com Fixes: 9cb28da54643 ("mm/gup: handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code") Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Muchun Song muchun.song@linux.dev Cc: Oscar Salvador osalvador@suse.de Cc: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---
include/linux/mm.h | 7 ++++--- mm/khugepaged.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ mm/pgtable-generic.c | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/mm.h~mm-let-pte_lockptr-consume-a-pte_t-pointer +++ a/include/linux/mm.h @@ -2915,9 +2915,10 @@ static inline spinlock_t *ptlock_ptr(str } #endif /* ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS */
-static inline spinlock_t *pte_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd) +static inline spinlock_t *pte_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *pte) { - return ptlock_ptr(page_ptdesc(pmd_page(*pmd))); + /* PTE page tables don't currently exceed a single page. */ + return ptlock_ptr(virt_to_ptdesc(pte)); }
static inline bool ptlock_init(struct ptdesc *ptdesc) @@ -2940,7 +2941,7 @@ static inline bool ptlock_init(struct pt /* * We use mm->page_table_lock to guard all pagetable pages of the mm. */ -static inline spinlock_t *pte_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd) +static inline spinlock_t *pte_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *pte) { return &mm->page_table_lock; } --- a/mm/khugepaged.c~mm-let-pte_lockptr-consume-a-pte_t-pointer +++ a/mm/khugepaged.c @@ -1697,12 +1697,13 @@ static void retract_page_tables(struct a i_mmap_lock_read(mapping); vma_interval_tree_foreach(vma, &mapping->i_mmap, pgoff, pgoff) { struct mmu_notifier_range range; + bool retracted = false; struct mm_struct *mm; unsigned long addr; pmd_t *pmd, pgt_pmd; spinlock_t *pml; spinlock_t *ptl; - bool skipped_uffd = false; + pte_t *pte;
/* * Check vma->anon_vma to exclude MAP_PRIVATE mappings that @@ -1739,9 +1740,17 @@ static void retract_page_tables(struct a mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
pml = pmd_lock(mm, pmd); - ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pmd); + + /* + * No need to check the PTE table content, but we'll grab the + * PTE table lock while we zap it. + */ + pte = pte_offset_map_nolock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); + if (!pte) + goto unlock_pmd; if (ptl != pml) spin_lock_nested(ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); + pte_unmap(pte);
/* * Huge page lock is still held, so normally the page table @@ -1752,20 +1761,20 @@ static void retract_page_tables(struct a * repeating the anon_vma check protects from one category, * and repeating the userfaultfd_wp() check from another. */ - if (unlikely(vma->anon_vma || userfaultfd_wp(vma))) { - skipped_uffd = true; - } else { + if (likely(!vma->anon_vma && !userfaultfd_wp(vma))) { pgt_pmd = pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, addr, pmd); pmdp_get_lockless_sync(); + retracted = true; }
if (ptl != pml) spin_unlock(ptl); +unlock_pmd: spin_unlock(pml);
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
- if (!skipped_uffd) { + if (retracted) { mm_dec_nr_ptes(mm); page_table_check_pte_clear_range(mm, addr, pgt_pmd); pte_free_defer(mm, pmd_pgtable(pgt_pmd)); --- a/mm/pgtable-generic.c~mm-let-pte_lockptr-consume-a-pte_t-pointer +++ a/mm/pgtable-generic.c @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ pte_t *pte_offset_map_nolock(struct mm_s
pte = __pte_offset_map(pmd, addr, &pmdval); if (likely(pte)) - *ptlp = pte_lockptr(mm, &pmdval); + *ptlp = pte_lockptr(mm, pte); return pte; }
@@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ again: pte = __pte_offset_map(pmd, addr, &pmdval); if (unlikely(!pte)) return pte; - ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, &pmdval); + ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pte); spin_lock(ptl); if (likely(pmd_same(pmdval, pmdp_get_lockless(pmd)))) { *ptlp = ptl; _
Patches currently in -mm which might be from david@redhat.com are
mm-let-pte_lockptr-consume-a-pte_t-pointer.patch mm-hugetlb-fix-hugetlb-vs-core-mm-pt-locking.patch