Re: [PATCH 2/3] hugetlbfs: Use i_mmap_rwsem to fix page fault/truncate race
From: Mike Kravetz
Date: Mon Dec 17 2018 - 13:42:40 EST
On 12/17/18 2:25 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On 12/4/18 1:38 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> hugetlbfs page faults can race with truncate and hole punch operations.
>> Current code in the page fault path attempts to handle this by 'backing
>> out' operations if we encounter the race. One obvious omission in the
>> current code is removing a page newly added to the page cache. This is
>> pretty straight forward to address, but there is a more subtle and
>> difficult issue of backing out hugetlb reservations. To handle this
>> correctly, the 'reservation state' before page allocation needs to be
>> noted so that it can be properly backed out. There are four distinct
>> possibilities for reservation state: shared/reserved, shared/no-resv,
>> private/reserved and private/no-resv. Backing out a reservation may
>> require memory allocation which could fail so that needs to be taken
>> into account as well.
>> Instead of writing the required complicated code for this rare
>> occurrence, just eliminate the race. i_mmap_rwsem is now held in read
>> mode for the duration of page fault processing. Hold i_mmap_rwsem
>> longer in truncation and hold punch code to cover the call to
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Fixes: ebed4bfc8da8 ("hugetlb: fix absurd HugePages_Rsvd")
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> index 32920a10100e..3244147fc42b 100644
>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static int hugetlb_vmtruncate(struct inode *inode, loff_t
>> if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&mapping->i_mmap.rb_root))
>> hugetlb_vmdelete_list(&mapping->i_mmap, pgoff, 0);
>> - i_mmap_unlock_write(mapping);
>> remove_inode_hugepages(inode, offset, LLONG_MAX);
>> + i_mmap_unlock_write(mapping);
>> return 0;
> We used to do remove_inode_hugepages()
> did we change the lock ordering with this patch?
Thanks for taking a look.
Yes, we did take locks in that order in the 'if (unlikely(page_mapped(page)))'
case within remove_inode_hugepages. That ordering was important as the
fault_mutex prevented faults while unmapping the page in all potential
With the change above, we will be holding i_mmap_rwsem in write mode while
calling remove_inode_hugepages. The page fault code (modified in previous
patch) acquires i_mmap_rwsem in read mode. Therefore, no page faults can
occur and, that 'if (unlikely(page_mapped(page)))' case within
remove_inode_hugepages will never happen. The now dead code is removed in
the subsequent patch.
As you suggested in a comment to the subsequent patch, it would be better to
combine the patches and remove the dead code when it becomes dead. I will
work on that. Actually some of the code in patch 3 applies to patch 1 and
some applies to patch 2. So, it will not be simply combining patch 2 and 3.