linux-kernel - Re: [patch 9/9] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks

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]

Message-Id: <20070204031039.46b56dbb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 4 Feb 2007 03:10:39 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Filesystems <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:59:58 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun,  4 Feb 2007 09:51:07 +0100 (CET) Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > > 2.  If we find the destination page is non uptodate, unlock it (this could be
> > >     made slightly more optimal), then find and pin the source page with
> > >     get_user_pages. Relock the destination page and continue with the copy.
> > >     However, instead of a usercopy (which might take a fault), copy the data
> > >     via the kernel address space.
> > 
> > argh.  We just can't go adding all this gunk into the write() path. 
> > 
> > mmap_sem, a full pte-walk, taking of pte-page locks, etc.  For every page. 
> > Even single-process write() will suffer, let along multithreaded stuff,
> > where mmap_sem contention may be the bigger problem.
> > 
> > I was going to do some quick measurements of this, but the code oopses
> > on power4 (http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/s5000402.jpg)
> > 
> > We need to think different.
> 
> How about leaving the existing code with the following minor 
> modifications:
> 
> Instead of calling filemap_copy_from_user{,_iovec}() do only the atomic 
> bit with pagefaults disabled, i.e. instead of filemap_copy_from_user() we 
> would do (could of course move into a helper function of course):
> 
> pagefault_disable()
> kaddr = kmap_atomic(page, KM_USER0);
> left = __copy_from_user_inatomic_nocache(kaddr + offset, buf, bytes);
> kunmap_atomic(kaddr, KM_USER0);
> pagefault_enable()
> 
> if (unlikely(left)) {
> 	/* The user space page got unmapped before we got to copy it. */
> 	...
> }
> 
> Thus the 99.999% (or more!) of the time the code would just work as it 
> always has and there is no bug and no speed impact.  Only in the very rare 
> and hard to trigger race condition that the user space page after being 
> faulted in got thrown out again before we did the atomic memory copy do we 
> run into the above "..." code path.

Right.  And what I wanted to do here is to zero out the uncopied part of
the page (if it wasn't uptodate), then run commit_write(), then retry the
whole thing.

iirc, we ruled that out because those temporary zeroes are exposed to
userspace.  But the kernel used to do that anyway for a long time (years)
until someone noticed, and we'll only do it in your 0.0001% case anyway.

(Actually, perhaps we can prevent it by not marking the page uptodate in
this case.  But that'll cause a read()er to try to bring it uptodate...)

> I would propose to call out a different function altogether which could do 
> a multitude of things including drop the lock on the destination page 
> (maintaining a reference on the page!), allocate a temporary page, copy 
> from the user space page into the temporary page, then lock the 
> destination page again, and copy from the temporary page into the 
> destination page.

The problem with all these things is that as soon as we unlock the page,
it's visible to read().  And in fact, as soon as we mark it uptodate it's
visible to mmap, even if it's still locked.

> This would be slow but who cares given it would only happen incredibly 
> rarely and on majority of machines it would never happen at all.
> 
> The only potential problem I can see is that the destination page could be 
> truncated whilst it is unlocked.  I can see two possible solutions to 
> this:

truncate's OK: we're holding i_mutex.

-
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/