Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mmu_notifiers: Call invalidate_range() when invalidating TLBs

[Luis Chamberlain]

Cc'ing fsdevel + xfs folks as this fixes a regression tests with
XFS with generic/176.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:52:59AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 
> SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Hi Alistair,
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 22:18:44 +1000 Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> The invalidate_range() is going to become an architecture specific mmu
> >> notifier used to keep the TLB of secondary MMUs such as an IOMMU in
> >> sync with the CPU page tables. Currently it is called from separate
> >> code paths to the main CPU TLB invalidations. This can lead to a
> >> secondary TLB not getting invalidated when required and makes it hard
> >> to reason about when exactly the secondary TLB is invalidated.
> >> 
> >> To fix this move the notifier call to the architecture specific TLB
> >> maintenance functions for architectures that have secondary MMUs
> >> requiring explicit software invalidations.
> >> 
> >> This fixes a SMMU bug on ARM64. On ARM64 PTE permission upgrades
> >> require a TLB invalidation. This invalidation is done by the
> >> architecutre specific ptep_set_access_flags() which calls
> >> flush_tlb_page() if required. However this doesn't call the notifier
> >> resulting in infinite faults being generated by devices using the SMMU
> >> if it has previously cached a read-only PTE in it's TLB.
> >> 
> >> Moving the invalidations into the TLB invalidation functions ensures
> >> all invalidations happen at the same time as the CPU invalidation. The
> >> architecture specific flush_tlb_all() routines do not call the
> >> notifier as none of the IOMMUs require this.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I found below kernel NULL-dereference issue on latest mm-unstable tree, and
> > bisect points me to the commit of this patch, namely
> > 75c400f82d347af1307010a3e06f3aa5d831d995.
> >
> > To reproduce, I use 'stress-ng --bigheap $(nproc)'.  The issue happens as soon
> > as it starts reclaiming memory.  I didn't dive deep into this yet, but
> > reporting this issue first, since you might have an idea already.
> 
> Thanks for the report SJ!
> 
> I see the problem - current->mm can (obviously!) be NULL which is what's
> leading to the NULL dereference. Instead I think on x86 I need to call
> the notifier when adding the invalidate to the tlbbatch in
> arch_tlbbatch_add_pending() which is equivalent to what ARM64 does.
> 
> The below should fix it. Will do a respin with this.
> 
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 837e4a50281a..79c46da919b9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/mm_types.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> @@ -282,6 +283,7 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_add_pending(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *b
>  {
>  	inc_mm_tlb_gen(mm);
>  	cpumask_or(&batch->cpumask, &batch->cpumask, mm_cpumask(mm));
> +	mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(mm, 0, -1UL);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void arch_flush_tlb_batched_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> index 0b990fb56b66..2d253919b3e8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -1265,7 +1265,6 @@ void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
>  
>  	put_flush_tlb_info();
>  	put_cpu();
> -	mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(current->mm, 0, -1UL);
>  }
>  
>  /*

This patch also fixes a regression introduced on linux-next, the same
crash on arch_tlbbatch_flush() is reproducible with fstests generic/176
on XFS. This patch fixes that regression [0]. This should also close out
the syzbot crash too [1]

[0] https://gist.github.com/mcgrof/b37fc8cf7e6e1b3935242681de1a83e2
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/0000000000003afcb4060135a664@xxxxxxxxxx/

Tested-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>

  Luis