linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v6 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime for memory-mapped files

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: <4df4ef0c0801181404m186bb847sd556e031e908b0b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:04:50 +0300
From:	"Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com>
To:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, jakob@...hought.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
	riel@...hat.com, ksm@...dk, staubach@...hat.com,
	jesper.juhl@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	protasnb@...il.com, r.e.wolff@...wizard.nl,
	hidave.darkstar@...il.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime for memory-mapped files

2008/1/19, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>:
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
> >
> > Before using pte_wrprotect() the vma_wrprotect() routine uses the
> > pte_offset_map_lock() macro to get the PTE and to acquire the ptl
> > spinlock. Why did you say that this code was not SMP-safe? It should
> > be atomic, I think.
>
> It's atomic WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO GET THE LOCK.
>
> Guess how much another x86 CPU cares when it sets the accessed bit in
> hardware?

Thank you very much for taking part in this discussion. Personally,
it's very important to me.  But I'm not sure that I understand which
bit can be lost.

Please let me explain.

The logic for my vma_wrprotect() routine was taken from the
page_check_address() function in mm/rmap.c. Here is a code snippet of
the latter function:

        pgd = pgd_offset(mm, address);
        if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
                return NULL;

        pud = pud_offset(pgd, address);
        if (!pud_present(*pud))
                return NULL;

        pmd = pmd_offset(pud, address);
        if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
                return NULL;

        pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, address);
        /* Make a quick check before getting the lock */
        if (!pte_present(*pte)) {
                pte_unmap(pte);
                return NULL;
        }

        ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pmd);
        spin_lock(ptl);
        if (pte_present(*pte) && page_to_pfn(page) == pte_pfn(*pte)) {
                *ptlp = ptl;
                return pte;
        }
        pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);

The page_check_address() function is called from the
page_mkclean_one() routine as follows:

        pte = page_check_address(page, mm, address, &ptl);
        if (!pte)
                goto out;

        if (pte_dirty(*pte) || pte_write(*pte)) {
                pte_t entry;

                flush_cache_page(vma, address, pte_pfn(*pte));
                entry = ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pte);
                entry = pte_wrprotect(entry);
                entry = pte_mkclean(entry);
                set_pte_at(mm, address, pte, entry);
                ret = 1;
        }

        pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);

The write-protection of the PTE is done using the pte_wrprotect()
entity. I intended to do the same during msync() with MS_ASYNC. I
understand that I'm taking a risk of looking a complete idiot now,
however I don't see any difference between the two situations.

I presumed that the code in mm/rmap.c was absolutely correct, that's
why I basically reused the design.

>
> > The POSIX standard requires the ctime and mtime stamps to be updated
> > not later than at the second call to msync() with the MS_ASYNC flag.
>
> .. and that is no excuse for bad code.
>
>                         Linus
>
--
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/