Commit b1f02b95 authored by Jann Horn's avatar Jann Horn Committed by Andrew Morton

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/20230721225107.942336-1-jannh@google.com
Fixes: 5e31275c ("mm: add per-VMA lock and helper functions to control it")
Signed-off-by: default avatarJann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarSuren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
parent 15571273
......@@ -641,8 +641,14 @@ static inline void vma_numab_state_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma) {}
*/
static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
/* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result. */
if (vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
/*
* Check before locking. A race might cause false locked result.
* We can use READ_ONCE() for the mm_lock_seq here, and don't need
* ACQUIRE semantics, because this is just a lockless check whose result
* we don't rely on for anything - the mm_lock_seq read against which we
* need ordering is below.
*/
if (READ_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq) == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))
return false;
if (unlikely(down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock) == 0))
......@@ -653,8 +659,13 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
* False unlocked result is impossible because we modify and check
* vma->vm_lock_seq under vma->vm_lock protection and mm->mm_lock_seq
* modification invalidates all existing locks.
*
* We must use ACQUIRE semantics for the mm_lock_seq so that if we are
* racing with vma_end_write_all(), we only start reading from the VMA
* after it has been unlocked.
* This pairs with RELEASE semantics in vma_end_write_all().
*/
if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
if (unlikely(vma->vm_lock_seq == smp_load_acquire(&vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq))) {
up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
return false;
}
......@@ -676,7 +687,7 @@ static bool __is_vma_write_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int *mm_lock_seq)
* current task is holding mmap_write_lock, both vma->vm_lock_seq and
* mm->mm_lock_seq can't be concurrently modified.
*/
*mm_lock_seq = READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq);
*mm_lock_seq = vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq;
return (vma->vm_lock_seq == *mm_lock_seq);
}
......@@ -688,7 +699,13 @@ static inline void vma_start_write(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
return;
down_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
vma->vm_lock_seq = mm_lock_seq;
/*
* We should use WRITE_ONCE() here because we can have concurrent reads
* from the early lockless pessimistic check in vma_start_read().
* We don't really care about the correctness of that early check, but
* we should use WRITE_ONCE() for cleanliness and to keep KCSAN happy.
*/
WRITE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq, mm_lock_seq);
up_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
}
......@@ -702,7 +719,7 @@ static inline bool vma_try_start_write(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
if (!down_write_trylock(&vma->vm_lock->lock))
return false;
vma->vm_lock_seq = mm_lock_seq;
WRITE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq, mm_lock_seq);
up_write(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
return true;
}
......
......@@ -514,6 +514,20 @@ struct vm_area_struct {
};
#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
/*
* Can only be written (using WRITE_ONCE()) while holding both:
* - mmap_lock (in write mode)
* - vm_lock->lock (in write mode)
* Can be read reliably while holding one of:
* - mmap_lock (in read or write mode)
* - vm_lock->lock (in read or write mode)
* Can be read unreliably (using READ_ONCE()) for pessimistic bailout
* while holding nothing (except RCU to keep the VMA struct allocated).
*
* This sequence counter is explicitly allowed to overflow; sequence
* counter reuse can only lead to occasional unnecessary use of the
* slowpath.
*/
int vm_lock_seq;
struct vma_lock *vm_lock;
......@@ -679,6 +693,20 @@ struct mm_struct {
* by mmlist_lock
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
/*
* This field has lock-like semantics, meaning it is sometimes
* accessed with ACQUIRE/RELEASE semantics.
* Roughly speaking, incrementing the sequence number is
* equivalent to releasing locks on VMAs; reading the sequence
* number can be part of taking a read lock on a VMA.
*
* Can be modified under write mmap_lock using RELEASE
* semantics.
* Can be read with no other protection when holding write
* mmap_lock.
* Can be read with ACQUIRE semantics if not holding write
* mmap_lock.
*/
int mm_lock_seq;
#endif
......
......@@ -76,8 +76,14 @@ static inline void mmap_assert_write_locked(struct mm_struct *mm)
static inline void vma_end_write_all(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
/* No races during update due to exclusive mmap_lock being held */
WRITE_ONCE(mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1);
/*
* Nobody can concurrently modify mm->mm_lock_seq due to exclusive
* mmap_lock being held.
* We need RELEASE semantics here to ensure that preceding stores into
* the VMA take effect before we unlock it with this store.
* Pairs with ACQUIRE semantics in vma_start_read().
*/
smp_store_release(&mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1);
}
#else
static inline void vma_end_write_all(struct mm_struct *mm) {}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment