Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] mm/hmm: add helpers for driver to safely take the mmap_sem v2

[John Hubbard]

On 3/28/19 3:40 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:25:39PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 3/28/19 3:08 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 02:41:02PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/19 2:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:54:01PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/19 7:40 AM, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> From: JÃrÃme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you insist on having this wrapper, I think it should have approximately 
>>>>>> this form:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void hmm_mirror_mm_down_read(...)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> 	WARN_ON(...)
>>>>>> 	down_read(...)
>>>>>> } 
>>>>>
>>>>> I do insist as it is useful and use by both RDMA and nouveau and the
>>>>> above would kill the intent. The intent is do not try to take the lock
>>>>> if the process is dying.
>>>>
>>>> Could you provide me a link to those examples so I can take a peek? I
>>>> am still convinced that this whole thing is a race condition at best.
>>>
>>> The race is fine and ok see:
>>>
>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~glisse/linux/commit/?h=hmm-odp-v2&id=eebd4f3095290a16ebc03182e2d3ab5dfa7b05ec
>>>
>>> which has been posted and i think i provided a link in the cover
>>> letter to that post. The same patch exist for nouveau i need to
>>> cleanup that tree and push it.
>>
>> Thanks for that link, and I apologize for not keeping up with that
>> other review thread.
>>
>> Looking it over, hmm_mirror_mm_down_read() is only used in one place.
>> So, what you really want there is not a down_read() wrapper, but rather,
>> something like
>>
>> 	hmm_sanity_check()
>>
>> , that ib_umem_odp_map_dma_pages() calls.
> 
> Why ? The device driver pattern is:
>     if (hmm_is_it_dying()) {
>         // handle when process die and abort the fault ie useless
>         // to call within HMM
>     }
>     down_read(mmap_sem);
> 
> This pattern is common within nouveau and RDMA and other device driver in
> the work. Hence why i am replacing it with just one helper. Also it has the
> added benefit that changes being discussed around the mmap sem will be easier
> to do as it avoid having to update each driver but instead it can be done
> just once for the HMM helpers.

Yes, and I'm saying that the pattern is broken. Because it's racy. :)

>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	struct mm_struct *mm;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	/* Sanity check ... */
>>>>>>> +	if (!mirror || !mirror->hmm)
>>>>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>>> +	 * Before trying to take the mmap_sem make sure the mm is still
>>>>>>> +	 * alive as device driver context might outlive the mm lifetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's find another way, and a better place, to solve this problem.
>>>>>> Ref counting?
>>>>>
>>>>> This has nothing to do with refcount or use after free or anthing
>>>>> like that. It is just about checking wether we are about to do
>>>>> something pointless. If the process is dying then it is pointless
>>>>> to try to take the lock and it is pointless for the device driver
>>>>> to trigger handle_mm_fault().
>>>>
>>>> Well, what happens if you let such pointless code run anyway? 
>>>> Does everything still work? If yes, then we don't need this change.
>>>> If no, then we need a race-free version of this change.
>>>
>>> Yes everything work, nothing bad can happen from a race, it will just
>>> do useless work which never hurt anyone.
>>>
>>
>> OK, so let's either drop this patch, or if merge windows won't allow that,
>> then *eventually* drop this patch. And instead, put in a hmm_sanity_check()
>> that does the same checks.
> 
> RDMA depends on this, so does the nouveau patchset that convert to new API.
> So i do not see reason to drop this. They are user for this they are posted
> and i hope i explained properly the benefit.
> 
> It is a common pattern. Yes it only save couple lines of code but down the
> road i will also help for people working on the mmap_sem patchset.
> 

It *adds* a couple of lines that are misleading, because they look like they
make things safer, but they don't actually do so.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA