Commit e1ec07eb authored by Tong Tiangen's avatar Tong Tiangen
Browse files

mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of tasklist_lock when collect_procs()

mainline inclusion
from mainline-v6.6-rc1
commit d256d1cd
category: bugfix
bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I85WL9
CVE: NA

Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d256d1cd8da1cbc4615de69df71c87ce623fec2f

--------------------------------

We found a softlock issue in our test, analyzed the logs, and found that
the relevant CPU call trace as follows:

CPU0:
  _do_fork
    -> copy_process()
      -> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)  //Disable irq,waiting for
      					 //tasklist_lock

CPU1:
  wp_page_copy()
    ->pte_offset_map_lock()
      -> spin_lock(&page->ptl);        //Hold page->ptl
    -> ptep_clear_flush()
      -> flush_tlb_others() ...
        -> smp_call_function_many()
          -> arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask()
            -> csd_lock_wait()         //Waiting for other CPUs respond
	                               //IPI

CPU2:
  collect_procs_anon()
    -> read_lock(&tasklist_lock)       //Hold tasklist_lock
      ->for_each_process(tsk)
        -> page_mapped_in_vma()
          -> page_vma_mapped_walk()
	    -> map_pte()
              ->spin_lock(&page->ptl)  //Waiting for page->ptl

We can see that CPU1 waiting for CPU0 respond IPI,CPU0 waiting for CPU2
unlock tasklist_lock, CPU2 waiting for CPU1 unlock page->ptl. As a result,
softlockup is triggered.

For collect_procs_anon(), what we're doing is task list iteration, during
the iteration, with the help of call_rcu(), the task_struct object is freed
only after one or more grace periods elapse. the logic as follows:

release_task()
  -> __exit_signal()
    -> __unhash_process()
      -> list_del_rcu()

  -> put_task_struct_rcu_user()
    -> call_rcu(&task->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct)

delayed_put_task_struct()
  -> put_task_struct()
  -> if (refcount_sub_and_test())
     	__put_task_struct()
          -> free_task()

Therefore, under the protection of the rcu lock, we can safely use
get_task_struct() to ensure a safe reference to task_struct during the
iteration.

By removing the use of tasklist_lock in task list iteration, we can break
the softlock chain above.

The same logic can also be applied to:
 - collect_procs_file()
 - collect_procs_fsdax()
 - collect_procs_ksm()

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230828022527.241693-1-tongtiangen@huawei.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarTong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: default avatarNaoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Conflicts:
	mm/filemap.c
	mm/ksm.c
	mm/memory-failure.c

Signed-off-by: default avatarTong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
parent 9afce123
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
+0 −3
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -166,9 +166,6 @@ static void page_cache_kill(struct page *page)
 *    bdi.wb->list_lock		(zap_pte_range->set_page_dirty)
 *    ->inode->i_lock		(zap_pte_range->set_page_dirty)
 *    ->private_lock		(zap_pte_range->__set_page_dirty_buffers)
 *
 * ->i_mmap_rwsem
 *   ->tasklist_lock            (memory_failure, collect_procs_ao)
 */

static int page_cache_tree_insert(struct address_space *mapping,
+6 −6
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -427,8 +427,8 @@ static void kill_procs(struct list_head *to_kill, int forcekill, bool fail,
 * on behalf of the thread group. Return task_struct of the (first found)
 * dedicated thread if found, and return NULL otherwise.
 *
 * We already hold read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in the caller, so we don't
 * have to call rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
 * We already hold rcu lock in the caller, so we don't have to call
 * rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
 */
static struct task_struct *find_early_kill_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
		return;

	pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
	rcu_read_lock();
	for_each_process (tsk) {
		struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
		struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
				add_to_kill(t, page, vma, to_kill, tkc);
		}
	}
	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
	rcu_read_unlock();
	page_unlock_anon_vma_read(av);
}

@@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
	struct address_space *mapping = page->mapping;

	i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
	rcu_read_lock();
	for_each_process(tsk) {
		pgoff_t pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
		struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
				add_to_kill(t, page, vma, to_kill, tkc);
		}
	}
	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
	rcu_read_unlock();
	i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
}