Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] mm/hwpoison: fix race between hugetlb free/demotion and memory_failure_hugetlb()
From: Miaohe Lin
Date: Thu Apr 14 2022 - 21:55:23 EST
On 2022/4/15 1:56, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 4/8/22 06:53, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb
>> free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page.
>> The one simple result is that wrong processes can be killed, but another
>> (more serious) one is that the actual error is left unhandled, so no one
>> prevents later access to it, and that might lead to more serious results
>> like consuming corrupted data.
>>
>> Think about the below race window:
>>
>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>> memory_failure_hugetlb
>> struct page *head = compound_head(p);
>> hugetlb page might be freed to
>> buddy, or even changed to another
>> compound page.
>>
>> get_hwpoison_page -- page is not what we want now...
>>
>> The current code first does prechecks roughly and then reconfirms
>> after taking refcount, but it's found that it makes code overly
>> complicated, so move the prechecks in a single hugetlb_lock range.
>>
>> A newly introduced function, try_memory_failure_hugetlb(), always
>> takes hugetlb_lock (even for non-hugetlb pages). That can be
>> improved, but memory_failure() is rare in principle, so should
>> not be a big problem.
...
>
> The above code works as designed, but may be a bit confusing. If HPageFreed()
> we KNOW ref count is zero, so no need to even call get_page_unless_zero() as
> it will always return false in this case. It might be more clear if written
> as separate else if statements such as:
>
> } else if (HPageFreed(head)) {
> ret = 0;
> } else if (HPageMigratable(head)) {
> ret = get_page_unless_zero(head);
> if (ret)
> count_increased = true;
>
This code here is consistent with the logic in get_hwpoison_huge_page. If change is required,
they might need to be changed together.
BTW: They look a bit confusing for me at first but I get used to it later. ;)
Thanks!
> Not insisting this be changed. Just easier to understand IMO.
>
> Again, thanks for your work on this!
>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>