linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] page fault retry with NOPAGE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:59:06 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] page fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:50:35 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 16:35 -0700, Mike Waychison wrote:
> > Patch attached.
> > 
> > As Andrew points out, the logic is a bit hacky and using a flag in 
> > current->flags to determine whether we have done the retry or not already.
> > 
> > I too think the right approach to being able to handle these kinds of 
> > retries in a more general fashion is to introduce a struct 
> > pagefault_args along the page faulting path.  Within it, we could 
> > introduce a reason for the retry so the higher levels would be able to 
> > better understand what to do.
> 
>  .../...
> 
> I need to re-read your mail and Andrew as at this point, I don't quite
> see why we need that args and/or that current->flags bit instead of
> always returning all the way to userland and let the faulting
> instruction happen again (which means you don't block in the kernel, can
> take signals etc...

That would amount to a busy wait, waiting for the disk IO to complete.

So we need to go to sleep somewhere (in D state, because we _are_ waiting
for disk IO).  Returning all the way to userspace and immediately retaking
the fault is unneeded extra work.

> thus do you actually need to prevent multiple
> retries ?)

I expect there are livelock scenarios.  For example, process A could spin
on posix_fadvise(some libc text page, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED), perhaps causing
other applications to get permanently stuck in the kernel.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/