Re: [PATCH v1] hugetlb, userfaultfd: Fix reservation restore on userfaultfd error

From: Mike Kravetz
Date: Tue Nov 16 2021 - 19:58:41 EST

Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] hugetlb, userfaultfd: Fix reservation restore on userfaultfd error

To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>, James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=# Don't remove this line #=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On 11/16/21 3:57 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:

> Currently in the is_continue case in hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(), if we

> bail out using "goto out_release_unlock;" in the cases where idx >=

> size, or !huge_pte_none(), the code will detect that new_pagecache_page

> == false, and so call restore_reserve_on_error().

> In this case I see restore_reserve_on_error() delete the reservation,

> and the following call to remove_inode_hugepages() will increment

> h->resv_hugepages causing a 100% reproducible leak.


> We should treat the is_continue case similar to adding a page into the

> pagecache and set new_pagecache_page to true, to indicate that there is

> no reservation to restore on the error path, and we need not call

> restore_reserve_on_error().


> Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>


> Fixes: c7b1850dfb41 ("hugetlb: don't pass page cache pages to restore_reserve_on_error")

> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx>

> Reported-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Mina and James!

Technically, the issue was introduced by commit 846be08578ed. See the

'Note on Fixes tag' in c7b1850dfb41. It is true that commit c7b1850dfb41

should have taken the 'is_continue' case into account when deciding whether

or not to call restore_reserve_on_error. However, this issue first

showed up with 846be08578ed. But, this patch depends on c7b1850dfb41 so

I think c7b1850dfb41 it best for the Fixes tag.

> ---

> mm/hugetlb.c | 8 ++++++++

> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)


> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c

> index e09159c957e3..25a7a3d84607 100644

> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c

> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c

> @@ -5741,6 +5741,14 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,

> page = find_lock_page(mapping, idx);

> if (!page)

> goto out;

> + /*

> + * Set new_pagecache_page to true, as we've added a page to the

> + * pagecache, but userfaultfd hasn't set up a mapping for this

We did not add the the page to the pagecache. Rather, this is the case

where the page already exists in the cache. Right?

> + * page yet. If we bail out before setting up the mapping, we

> + * want to indicate to restore_reserve_on_error() that we've

> + * added the page to the page cache.

> + */

> + new_pagecache_page = true;

How about changing the variable name new_pagecache_page to page_in_pagecache?

Then it makes sense both here and below when actually adding to the

cache. I think we could then drop the above comment.


Mike Kravetz

> } else if (!*pagep) {

> /* If a page already exists, then it's UFFDIO_COPY for

> * a non-missing case. Return -EEXIST.

> --

> 2.34.0.rc1.387.gb447b232ab-goog