> On Dec 18, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/17/20 9:23 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:33 PM Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ahh. I missed that. Makes sense.
>>>> vm_file needs to be accurate, but vm_area_struct should be accessed as
>>>> ptr_to_btf_id.
>>>
>>> Passing pointer of vm_area_struct into BPF will be tricky. For example,
>>> shall we
>>> allow the user to access vma->vm_file? IIUC, with ptr_to_btf_id the
>>> verifier will
>>> allow access of vma->vm_file as a valid pointer to struct file. However,
>>> since the
>>> vma might be freed, vma->vm_file could point to random data.
>> I don't think so. The proposed patch will do get_file() on it.
>> There is actually no need to assign it into a different variable.
>> Accessing it via vma->vm_file is safe and cleaner.
>
> I did not check the code but do you have scenarios where vma is freed but old
> vma->vm_file is not freed due to reference counting, but
> freed vma area is reused so vma->vm_file could be garbage?
AFAIK, once we unlock mmap_sem, the vma could be freed and reused. I guess
ptr_to_btf_id
or probe_read would not help with this?
Thanks,
Song
>
>>>>> [1] ff9f47f6f00c ("mm: proc: smaps_rollup: do not stall write attempts on
>>>>> mmap_lock")
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this link. With "if (mmap_lock_is_contended())" check it should
>>>> work indeed.
>>>
>>> To make sure we are on the same page: I am using slightly different
>>> mechanism in
>>> task_vma_iter, which doesn't require checking mmap_lock_is_contended(). In
>>> the
>>> smaps_rollup case, the code only unlock mmap_sem when the lock is
>>> contended. In
>>> task_iter, we always unlock mmap_sem between two iterations. This is
>>> because we
>>> don't want to hold mmap_sem while calling the BPF program, which may sleep
>>> (calling
>>> bpf_d_path).
>> That part is clear. I had to look into mmap_read_lock_killable()
>> implementation
>> to realize that it's checking for lock_is_contended after acquiring
>> and releasing
>> if there is a contention. So it's the same behavior at the end.
