mm: Fix warning in insert_pfn()
Subsystems (3)
Jan Kara
reviewerPATCH 1/1 mm: Fix warning in insert_pfn()
In DAX mode a write pagefault can race with write(2) in the following way:
CPU0 CPU1
write fault for mapped zero page (hole)dax_iomap_rw()
iomap_apply()
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- allocates blocks
dax_iomap_actor()
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
- invalidates radix tree entries in given range dax_iomap_pte_fault() grab_mapping_entry()
- no entry found, creates empty
...
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- finds already allocated block
...
vmf_insert_mixed_mkwrite()
- WARNs and does nothing because there is still zero page mapped in PTE
unmap_mapping_pages()
This race results in WARN_ON from insert_pfn() and is occasionally triggered by fstest generic/344. Note that the race is otherwise harmless as before write(2) on CPU0 is finished, we will invalidate page tables properly and thus user of mmap will see modified data from write(2) from that point on. So just restrict the warning only to the case when the PFN in PTE is not zero page.
--- mm/memory.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
mm/memory.c +7 -2
@@ -1787,10 +1787,15 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,* in may not match the PFN we have mapped if the * mapped PFN is a writeable COW page. In the mkwrite * case we are creating a writable PTE for a shared -* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. +* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. If they +* don't match, we are likely racing with block +* allocation and mapping invalidation so just skip the +* update. */ -if (WARN_ON_ONCE (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn))) +if (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn)) { +WARN_ON_ONCE (!is_zero_pfn (pte_pfn (*pte))); goto out_unlock; + } entry = *pte; goto out_mkwrite; }else
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Quoted 24 lines · Jan Kara
In DAX mode a write pagefault can race with write(2) in the following way:
CPU0 CPU1
write fault for mapped zero page (hole)dax_iomap_rw()
iomap_apply()
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- allocates blocks
dax_iomap_actor()
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
- invalidates radix tree entries in given rangedax_iomap_pte_fault()grab_mapping_entry()
- no entry found, creates empty
...
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- finds already allocated block
...
vmf_insert_mixed_mkwrite()
- WARNs and does nothing because there is still zero page mapped in PTE
unmap_mapping_pages()
Quoted 8 lines
This race results in
WARN_ONfrominsert_pfn()and is occasionally triggered by fstest generic/344. Note that the race is otherwise harmless as before write(2) on CPU0 is finished, we will invalidate page tables properly and thus user of mmap will see modified data from write(2) from that point on. So just restrict the warning only to the case when the PFN in PTE is not zero page.Signed-off-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>
I don't see this in linux-next. What's the status of this patch?
Thanks,
- Ted
Quoted 33 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Quoted 31 lines · Jan Kara
In DAX mode a write pagefault can race with write(2) in the following way:
CPU0 CPU1
write fault for mapped zero page (hole)dax_iomap_rw()
iomap_apply()
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- allocates blocks
dax_iomap_actor()
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
- invalidates radix tree entries in given rangedax_iomap_pte_fault()grab_mapping_entry()
- no entry found, creates empty
...
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- finds already allocated block
...
vmf_insert_mixed_mkwrite()
- WARNs and does nothing because there is still zero page mapped in PTE
unmap_mapping_pages()This race results in
WARN_ONfrominsert_pfn()and is occasionally triggered by fstest generic/344. Note that the race is otherwise harmless as before write(2) on CPU0 is finished, we will invalidate page tables properly and thus user of mmap will see modified data from write(2) from that point on. So just restrict the warning only to the case when the PFN in PTE is not zero page.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>I don't see this in linux-next. What's the status of this patch?
It's in Andrew's tree. I believe we are awaiting the next -next release to rebase on latest mmotm.
Quoted 3 lines · Dan Williams
It's in Andrew's tree. I believe we are awaiting the next -next release to rebase on latest mmotm.
Great, thanks for the update!
- Ted
Andrew Morton
maintainerQuoted 41 lines · On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:45:42 +0200 Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
In DAX mode a write pagefault can race with write(2) in the following way:
CPU0 CPU1
write fault for mapped zero page (hole)dax_iomap_rw()
iomap_apply()
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- allocates blocks
dax_iomap_actor()
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
- invalidates radix tree entries in given rangedax_iomap_pte_fault()grab_mapping_entry()
- no entry found, creates empty
...
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- finds already allocated block
...
vmf_insert_mixed_mkwrite()
- WARNs and does nothing because there is still zero page mapped in PTE
unmap_mapping_pages()This race results in
WARN_ONfrominsert_pfn()and is occasionally triggered by fstest generic/344. Note that the race is otherwise harmless as before write(2) on CPU0 is finished, we will invalidate page tables properly and thus user of mmap will see modified data from write(2) from that point on. So just restrict the warning only to the case when the PFN in PTE is not zero page....
mm/memory.c +1
-1@@ -1787,10 +1787,15 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,* in may not match the PFN we have mapped if the * mapped PFN is a writeable COW page. In the mkwrite * case we are creating a writable PTE for a shared -* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. +* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. If they
mm/memory.c static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, · line 1799
Quoted 10 lines
mm/memory.c +6
-1+* don't match, we are likely racing with block +* allocation and mapping invalidation so just skip the +* update. */ -if (WARN_ON_ONCE (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn))) +if (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn)) { +WARN_ON_ONCE (!is_zero_pfn (pte_pfn (*pte))); goto out_unlock; + } entry = *pte;
Shouldn't we just remove the warning? We know it happens and we know why it happens and we know it's harmless. What's the point in scaring people?
Quoted 50 lines · Andrew Morton
Quoted 47 lines · On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:45:42 +0200 Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
In DAX mode a write pagefault can race with write(2) in the following way:
CPU0 CPU1
write fault for mapped zero page (hole)dax_iomap_rw()
iomap_apply()
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- allocates blocks
dax_iomap_actor()
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
- invalidates radix tree entries in given rangedax_iomap_pte_fault()grab_mapping_entry()
- no entry found, creates empty
...
xfs_file_iomap_begin()
- finds already allocated block
...
vmf_insert_mixed_mkwrite()
- WARNs and does nothing because there is still zero page mapped in PTE
unmap_mapping_pages()This race results in
WARN_ONfrominsert_pfn()and is occasionally triggered by fstest generic/344. Note that the race is otherwise harmless as before write(2) on CPU0 is finished, we will invalidate page tables properly and thus user of mmap will see modified data from write(2) from that point on. So just restrict the warning only to the case when the PFN in PTE is not zero page....
mm/memory.c +5
-2@@ -1787,10 +1787,15 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,* in may not match the PFN we have mapped if the * mapped PFN is a writeable COW page. In the mkwrite * case we are creating a writable PTE for a shared -* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. +* mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. If they +* don't match, we are likely racing with block +* allocation and mapping invalidation so just skip the +* update. */ -if (WARN_ON_ONCE (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn))) +if (pte_pfn (*pte) !=pfn_t_to_pfn (pfn)) {
Quoted 8 lines
mm/memory.c static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, · line 1799
Quoted 4 lines
mm/memory.c +2
-0+WARN_ON_ONCE (!is_zero_pfn (pte_pfn (*pte))); goto out_unlock; + } entry = *pte;Shouldn't we just remove the warning? We know it happens and we know why it happens and we know it's harmless. What's the point in scaring people?
tl;dr let's keep it.
I think this fix effectively pushes this into "can't happen" territory, but if it does our dax assumptions are off somewhere else. So, I think this is useful for developers hacking around in the dax code to make sure they aren't breaking some fundamental assumption.