You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
mm: fix memory ordering for mm_lock_seq and vm_lock_seq
mm->mm_lock_seq effectively functions as a read/write lock; therefore it
must be used with acquire/release semantics.
A specific example is the interaction between userfaultfd_register() and
lock_vma_under_rcu().
userfaultfd_register() does the following from the point where it changes
a VMA's flags to the point where concurrent readers are permitted again
(in a simple scenario where only a single private VMA is accessed and no
merging/splitting is involved):
userfaultfd_register
userfaultfd_set_vm_flags
vm_flags_reset
vma_start_write
down_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock)
vma->vm_lock_seq = mm_lock_seq [marks VMA as busy]
up_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock)
vm_flags_init
[sets VM_UFFD_* in __vm_flags]
vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx = ctx
mmap_write_unlock
vma_end_write_all
WRITE_ONCE(mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1) [unlocks VMA]
There are no memory barriers in between the __vm_flags update and the
mm->mm_lock_seq update that unlocks the VMA, so the unlock can be
reordered to above the `vm_flags_init()` call, which means from the
perspective of a concurrent reader, a VMA can be marked as a userfaultfd
VMA while it is not VMA-locked. That's bad, we definitely need a
store-release for the unlock operation.
The non-atomic write to vma->vm_lock_seq in vma_start_write() is mostly
fine because all accesses to vma->vm_lock_seq that matter are always
protected by the VMA lock. There is a racy read in vma_start_read()
though that can tolerate false-positives, so we should be using
WRITE_ONCE() to keep things tidy and data-race-free (including for KCSAN).
On the other side, lock_vma_under_rcu() works as follows in the relevant
region for locking and userfaultfd check:
lock_vma_under_rcu
vma_start_read
vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq) [early bailout]
down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock)
vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq) [main check]
userfaultfd_armed
checks vma->vm_flags & __VM_UFFD_FLAGS
Here, the interesting aspect is how far down the mm->mm_lock_seq read can
be reordered - if this read is reordered down below the vma->vm_flags
access, this could cause lock_vma_under_rcu() to partly operate on
information that was read while the VMA was supposed to be locked. To
prevent this kind of downwards bleeding of the mm->mm_lock_seq read, we
need to read it with a load-acquire.
Some of the comment wording is based on suggestions by Suren.
BACKPORT WARNING: One of the functions changed by this patch (which I've
written against Linus' tree) is vma_try_start_write(), but this function
no longer exists in mm/mm-everything. I don't know whether the merged
version of this patch will be ordered before or after the patch that
removes vma_try_start_write(). If you're backporting this patch to a tree
with vma_try_start_write(), make sure this patch changes that function.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Fixes: 5e31275 ("mm: add per-VMA lock and helper functions to control it")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
0 commit comments