Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: rmap: Fix CONT-PTE/PMD size hugetlb issue when unmapping

[Gerald Schaefer]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:19:46 +0800
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 5/2/2022 10:02 PM, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:22:33 +0800
> > Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/30/2022 4:02 AM, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:14:43 +0800
> >>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On some architectures (like ARM64), it can support CONT-PTE/PMD size
> >>>> hugetlb, which means it can support not only PMD/PUD size hugetlb:
> >>>> 2M and 1G, but also CONT-PTE/PMD size: 64K and 32M if a 4K page
> >>>> size specified.
> >>>>
> >>>> When unmapping a hugetlb page, we will get the relevant page table
> >>>> entry by huge_pte_offset() only once to nuke it. This is correct
> >>>> for PMD or PUD size hugetlb, since they always contain only one
> >>>> pmd entry or pud entry in the page table.
> >>>>
> >>>> However this is incorrect for CONT-PTE and CONT-PMD size hugetlb,
> >>>> since they can contain several continuous pte or pmd entry with
> >>>> same page table attributes, so we will nuke only one pte or pmd
> >>>> entry for this CONT-PTE/PMD size hugetlb page.
> >>>>
> >>>> And now we only use try_to_unmap() to unmap a poisoned hugetlb page,
> >>>> which means now we will unmap only one pte entry for a CONT-PTE or
> >>>> CONT-PMD size poisoned hugetlb page, and we can still access other
> >>>> subpages of a CONT-PTE or CONT-PMD size poisoned hugetlb page,
> >>>> which will cause serious issues possibly.
> >>>>
> >>>> So we should change to use huge_ptep_clear_flush() to nuke the
> >>>> hugetlb page table to fix this issue, which already considered
> >>>> CONT-PTE and CONT-PMD size hugetlb.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note we've already used set_huge_swap_pte_at() to set a poisoned
> >>>> swap entry for a poisoned hugetlb page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    mm/rmap.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>>> index 7cf2408..1e168d7 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>>> @@ -1564,28 +1564,28 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>>    					break;
> >>>>    				}
> >>>>    			}
> >>>> +			pteval = huge_ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pvmw.pte);
> >>>
> >>> Unlike in your patch 2/3, I do not see that this (huge) pteval would later
> >>> be used again with set_huge_pte_at() instead of set_pte_at(). Not sure if
> >>> this (huge) pteval could end up at a set_pte_at() later, but if yes, then
> >>> this would be broken on s390, and you'd need to use set_huge_pte_at()
> >>> instead of set_pte_at() like in your patch 2/3.
> >>
> >> IIUC, As I said in the commit message, we will only unmap a poisoned
> >> hugetlb page by try_to_unmap(), and the poisoned hugetlb page will be
> >> remapped with a poisoned entry by set_huge_swap_pte_at() in
> >> try_to_unmap_one(). So I think no need change to use set_huge_pte_at()
> >> instead of set_pte_at() for other cases, since the hugetlb page will not
> >> hit other cases.
> >>
> >> if (PageHWPoison(subpage) && !(flags & TTU_IGNORE_HWPOISON)) {
> >> 	pteval = swp_entry_to_pte(make_hwpoison_entry(subpage));
> >> 	if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
> >> 		hugetlb_count_sub(folio_nr_pages(folio), mm);
> >> 		set_huge_swap_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval,
> >> 				     vma_mmu_pagesize(vma));
> >> 	} else {
> >> 		dec_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter(&folio->page));
> >> 		set_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
> >> 	}
> >>
> >> }
> > 
> > OK, but wouldn't the pteval be overwritten here with
> > pteval = swp_entry_to_pte(make_hwpoison_entry(subpage))?
> > IOW, what sense does it make to save the returned pteval from
> > huge_ptep_clear_flush(), when it is never being used anywhere?
> 
> Please see previous code, we'll use the original pte value to check if 
> it is uffd-wp armed, and if need to mark it dirty though the hugetlbfs 
> is set noop_dirty_folio().
> 
> pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);

Uh, ok, that wouldn't work on s390, but we also don't have
CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP / HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP set, so
I guess we will be fine (for now).

Still, I find it a bit unsettling that pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed()
would work on a potential hugetlb *pte, directly de-referencing it
instead of using huge_ptep_get().

The !pte_none(*pte) check at the beginning would be broken in the
hugetlb case for s390 (not sure about other archs, but I think s390
might be the only exception strictly requiring huge_ptep_get()
for de-referencing hugetlb *pte pointers).

> 
> /* Set the dirty flag on the folio now the pte is gone. */
> if (pte_dirty(pteval))
> 	folio_mark_dirty(folio);

Ok, that should work fine, huge_ptep_clear_flush() will return
a pteval properly de-referenced and converted with huge_ptep_get(),
and that would contain the hugetlb pmd/pud dirty information.