Re: [PATCH 02/11] mm,migration: Do not try to migrate unmapped anonymous pages

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:00:15 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:12 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> > BTW, I doubt freeing anon_vma can happen even when we check mapcount.
> >
> > "unmap" is 2-stage operation.
> > Â Â Â Â1. unmap_vmas() => modify ptes, free pages, etc.
> > Â Â Â Â2. free_pgtables() => free pgtables, unlink vma and free it.
> >
> > Then, if migration is enough slow.
> >
> > Â Â Â ÂMigration(): Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ÂExit():
> > Â Â Â Âcheck mapcount
> > Â Â Â Ârcu_read_lock
> > Â Â Â Âpte_lock
> > Â Â Â Âreplace pte with migration pte
> > Â Â Â Âpte_unlock
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âpte_lock
> > Â Â Â Âcopy page etc... Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âzap pte (clear pte)
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âpte_unlock
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âfree_pgtables
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â->free vma
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â->free anon_vma
> > Â Â Â Âpte_lock
> > Â Â Â Âremap pte with new pfn(fail)
> > Â Â Â Âpte_unlock
> >
> >    Âlock anon_vma->lock       # modification after free.
> > Â Â Â Âcheck list is empty
> 
> check list is empty?
> Do you mean anon_vma->head?
> 
yes.

> If it is, is it possible that that list isn't empty since anon_vma is
> used by others due to
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU?
> 
There are 4 cases.
	A) anon_vma->list is not empty because anon_vma is not freed.
	B) anon_vma->list is empty because it's freed.
	C) anon_vma->list is empty but it's reused.
	D) anon_vma->list is not empty but it's reused.
 
> but such case is handled by page_check_address, vma_address, I think.
> 
yes. Then, this corrupt nothing, as I wrote. We just modify anon_vma->lock
and it's safe because of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.


> > Â Â Â Âunlock anon_vma->lock
> > Â Â Â Âfree anon_vma
> > Â Â Â Ârcu_read_unlock
> >
> >
> > Hmm. IIUC, anon_vma is allocated as SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. Then, while
> > rcu_read_lock() is taken, anon_vma is anon_vma even if freed. But it
> > may reused as anon_vma for someone else.
> > (IOW, it may be reused but never pushed back to general purpose memory
> > Âuntil RCU grace period.)
> > Then, touching anon_vma->lock never cause any corruption.
> >
> > Does use-after-free check for SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU correct behavior ?
> 
> Could you elaborate your point?
> 

Ah, my point is "how use-after-free is detected ?"

If use-after-free is detected by free_pages() (DEBUG_PGALLOC), it seems
strange because DESTROY_BY_RCU guarantee that never happens.

So, I assume use-after-free is detected in SLAB layer. If so,
in above B), C), D) case, it seems there is use-after free in slab's point
of view but it works as expected, no corruption.

Then, my question is
"Does use-after-free check for SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU work correctly ?"

and implies we need this patch ?
(But this will prevent unnecessary page copy etc. by easy check.)

Thanks,
-Kame



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/