Fix x86_64 page fault scheduler race
PATCH 1/1 Fix x86_64 page fault scheduler race
Quoted 6 lines
I think you're vastly overestimating what is sane to do from an NMI context. It is utterly and totally insane to assume vmalloc is available in NMI.
-hpa
Ok, please tell me where I am wrong then.. by looking into arch/x86/mm/fault.c, I see that vmalloc_sync_all() touches pgd_list entries while the pgd_lock spinlock is taken, with interrupts disabled. So it's protected against concurrent pgd_list modification from
a - vmalloc_sync_all() on other CPUs
b - local interrupts
However, a completely normal interrupt can come on a remote CPU, run vmalloc_fault() and issue a set_pgd concurrently. Therefore I conclude this interrupt disable is not there to insure any kind of protection against concurrent updates.
Also, we see that vmalloc_fault has comments such as :
(for x86_32)
* Do _not_ use "current" here. We might be inside
* an interrupt in the middle of a task switch..
So it takes the pgd_addr from cr3, not from current. Using only the stack/registers makes this NMI-safe even if "current" is invalid when the NMI comes. This is caused by the fact that __switch_to will update the registers before updating current_task without disabling interrupts.
You are right in that x86_64 does not seems to play as safely as x86_32 on this matter; it uses current->mm. Probably it shouldn't assume "current" is valid. Actually, I don't see where x86_64 disables interrupts around __switch_to, so this would seem to be a race condition. Or have I missed something ?
--- arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
arch/x86/mm/fault.c +3 -1
@@ -513,6 +513,7 @@ static int vmalloc_fault(unsigned long areturn -1 ;return 0 ;#else +unsigned long pgd_paddr;pgd_t *pgd, *pgd_ref;pud_t *pud, *pud_ref;pmd_t *pmd, *pmd_ref;
@@ -526,7 +527,8 @@ static int vmalloc_fault(unsigned long ahappen within a race in page table update. In the later case just flush. */ - pgd =pgd_offset (current->mm ?: &init_mm, address); + pgd_paddr =read_cr3 (); + pgd =__va (pgd_paddr) +pgd_index (address); pgd_ref =pgd_offset_k (address);if (pgd_none (*pgd_ref))return -1 ;
Signature · 3 lines
Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
Quoted 5 lines · Mathieu Desnoyers
You are right in that
x86_64does not seems to play as safely asx86_32on this matter; it usescurrent->mm. Probably it shouldn't assume "current" is valid. Actually, I don't see wherex86_64disables interrupts around__switch_to, so this would seem to be a race condition. Or have I missed something ?
the scheduler disables interrupts around __switch_to(). (x86 does not set __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW)
Ingo
Quoted 9 lines · * Ingo Molnar ([email protected]) wrote:
Quoted 5 lines · Mathieu Desnoyers
You are right in that
x86_64does not seems to play as safely asx86_32on this matter; it usescurrent->mm. Probably it shouldn't assume "current" is valid. Actually, I don't see wherex86_64disables interrupts around__switch_to, so this would seem to be a race condition. Or have I missed something ?
Quoted 4 lines
the scheduler disables interrupts around
__switch_to(). (x86 does not set__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW)Ingo
Ok, so I guess it's only useful to NMIs then. However, it makes me wonder why this comment was there in the first place on x86_32 vmalloc_fault() and why it uses read_cr3() :
* Do _not_ use "current" here. We might be inside
* an interrupt in the middle of a task switch..
Mathieu
Signature · 3 lines
Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
Quoted 9 lines · Mathieu Desnoyers
Quoted 2 lines
the scheduler disables interrupts around
__switch_to(). (x86 does not set__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW)Ok, so I guess it's only useful to NMIs then. However, it makes me wonder why this comment was there in the first place on
x86_32vmalloc_fault()and why it usesread_cr3():* Do _not_ use "current" here. We might be inside
* an interrupt in the middle of a task switch..
hm, i guess it's still useful to keep the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW case working too. On -rt we used to enable it to squeeze a tiny bit more latency out of the system.
Ingo