linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mremap: enforce rmap src/dst vma ordering in case of vma_merge succeeding in copy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111041158440.1554@sister.anvils>
Date:	Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Pawel Sikora <pluto@...k.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	jpiszcz@...idpixels.com, arekm@...-linux.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mremap: enforce rmap src/dst vma ordering in case of
 vma_merge succeeding in copy_vma

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Nai Xia wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >> @@ -2339,7 +2339,15 @@ struct vm_area_struct *copy_vma(struct vm_area_struct **vmap,
> >>                */
> >>               if (vma_start >= new_vma->vm_start &&
> >>                   vma_start < new_vma->vm_end)
> >> +                     /*
> >> +                      * No need to call anon_vma_order_tail() in
> >> +                      * this case because the same PT lock will
> >> +                      * serialize the rmap_walk against both src
> >> +                      * and dst vmas.
> >> +                      */
> >
> > Really?  Please convince me: I just do not see what ensures that
> > the same pt lock covers both src and dst areas in this case.
> 
> At the first glance that rmap_walk does travel this merged VMA
> once...
> But, Now, Wait...., I am actually really puzzled that this case can really
> happen at all, you see that vma_merge() does not break the validness
> between page->index and its VMA. So if this can really happen,
> a page->index should be valid in both areas in a same VMA.
> It's strange to imagine that a PTE is copy inside a _same_ VMA
> and page->index is valid at both old and new places.

Yes, I think you are right, thank you for elucidating it.

That was a real case when we wrote copy_vma(), when rmap was using
pte_chains; but once anon_vma came in, and imposed vm_pgoff matching
on anonymous mappings too, it became dead code.  With linear vm_pgoff
matching, you cannot fit a range in two places within the same vma.
(And even the non-linear case relies upon vm_pgoff defaults.)

So we could simplify the copy_vma() interface a little now (get rid of
that nasty **vmap): I'm not quite sure whether we ought to do that,
but certainly Andrea's comment there should be updated (if he also
agrees with your analysis).

> 
> IMO, the only case that src VMA can be merged by the new
> is that src VMA hasn't been faulted yet and the pgoff
> is recalculated. And if my reasoning is true, this place
> does not need to be worried about.

I don't see a place where "the pgoff is recalculated" (except in
the consistent way when expanding or splitting or merging vma), nor
where vma merge would allow for variable pgoff.  I agree that we
could avoid finalizing vm_pgoff for an anonymous area until its
anon_vma is assigned: were you imagining doing that in future,
or am I overlooking something already there?

Hugh