The quilt patch titled Subject: userfaultfd: do not block on locking a large folio with raised refcount has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was userfaultfd-do-not-block-on-locking-a-large-folio-with-raised-refcount.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-hotfixes-stable branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------ From: Suren Baghdasaryan surenb@google.com Subject: userfaultfd: do not block on locking a large folio with raised refcount Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 10:55:08 -0800
Lokesh recently raised an issue about UFFDIO_MOVE getting into a deadlock state when it goes into split_folio() with raised folio refcount. split_folio() expects the reference count to be exactly mapcount + num_pages_in_folio + 1 (see can_split_folio()) and fails with EAGAIN otherwise.
If multiple processes are trying to move the same large folio, they raise the refcount (all tasks succeed in that) then one of them succeeds in locking the folio, while others will block in folio_lock() while keeping the refcount raised. The winner of this race will proceed with calling split_folio() and will fail returning EAGAIN to the caller and unlocking the folio. The next competing process will get the folio locked and will go through the same flow. In the meantime the original winner will be retried and will block in folio_lock(), getting into the queue of waiting processes only to repeat the same path. All this results in a livelock.
An easy fix would be to avoid waiting for the folio lock while holding folio refcount, similar to madvise_free_huge_pmd() where folio lock is acquired before raising the folio refcount. Since we lock and take a refcount of the folio while holding the PTE lock, changing the order of these operations should not break anything.
Modify move_pages_pte() to try locking the folio first and if that fails and the folio is large then return EAGAIN without touching the folio refcount. If the folio is single-page then split_folio() is not called, so we don't have this issue. Lokesh has a reproducer [1] and I verified that this change fixes the issue.
[1] https://github.com/lokeshgidra/uffd_move_ioctl_deadlock
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: reflow comment to 80 cols, s/end/end up/] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250226185510.2732648-2-surenb@google.com Fixes: adef440691ba ("userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI") Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan surenb@google.com Reported-by: Lokesh Gidra lokeshgidra@google.com Reviewed-by: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com Acked-by: Liam R. Howlett Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com Cc: Andrea Arcangeli aarcange@redhat.com Cc: Barry Song 21cnbao@gmail.com Cc: Barry Song v-songbaohua@oppo.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Hugh Dickins hughd@google.com Cc: Jann Horn jannh@google.com Cc: Kalesh Singh kaleshsingh@google.com Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com Cc: Matthew Wilcow (Oracle) willy@infradead.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---
mm/userfaultfd.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/userfaultfd.c~userfaultfd-do-not-block-on-locking-a-large-folio-with-raised-refcount +++ a/mm/userfaultfd.c @@ -1250,6 +1250,7 @@ retry: */ if (!src_folio) { struct folio *folio; + bool locked;
/* * Pin the page while holding the lock to be sure the @@ -1269,12 +1270,26 @@ retry: goto out; }
+ locked = folio_trylock(folio); + /* + * We avoid waiting for folio lock with a raised + * refcount for large folios because extra refcounts + * will result in split_folio() failing later and + * retrying. If multiple tasks are trying to move a + * large folio we can end up livelocking. + */ + if (!locked && folio_test_large(folio)) { + spin_unlock(src_ptl); + err = -EAGAIN; + goto out; + } + folio_get(folio); src_folio = folio; src_folio_pte = orig_src_pte; spin_unlock(src_ptl);
- if (!folio_trylock(src_folio)) { + if (!locked) { pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte); pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte); src_pte = dst_pte = NULL; _
Patches currently in -mm which might be from surenb@google.com are
mm-avoid-extra-mem_alloc_profiling_enabled-checks.patch alloc_tag-uninline-code-gated-by-mem_alloc_profiling_key-in-slab-allocator.patch alloc_tag-uninline-code-gated-by-mem_alloc_profiling_key-in-page-allocator.patch mm-introduce-vma_start_read_locked_nested-helpers.patch mm-move-per-vma-lock-into-vm_area_struct.patch mm-mark-vma-as-detached-until-its-added-into-vma-tree.patch mm-introduce-vma_iter_store_attached-to-use-with-attached-vmas.patch mm-mark-vmas-detached-upon-exit.patch types-move-struct-rcuwait-into-typesh.patch mm-allow-vma_start_read_locked-vma_start_read_locked_nested-to-fail.patch mm-move-mmap_init_lock-out-of-the-header-file.patch mm-uninline-the-main-body-of-vma_start_write.patch refcount-provide-ops-for-cases-when-objects-memory-can-be-reused.patch refcount-provide-ops-for-cases-when-objects-memory-can-be-reused-fix.patch refcount-introduce-__refcount_addinc_not_zero_limited_acquire.patch mm-replace-vm_lock-and-detached-flag-with-a-reference-count.patch mm-replace-vm_lock-and-detached-flag-with-a-reference-count-fix.patch mm-move-lesser-used-vma_area_struct-members-into-the-last-cacheline.patch mm-debug-print-vm_refcnt-state-when-dumping-the-vma.patch mm-remove-extra-vma_numab_state_init-call.patch mm-prepare-lock_vma_under_rcu-for-vma-reuse-possibility.patch mm-make-vma-cache-slab_typesafe_by_rcu.patch mm-make-vma-cache-slab_typesafe_by_rcu-fix.patch docs-mm-document-latest-changes-to-vm_lock.patch