linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] MADV_VOLATILE: Add MADV_VOLATILE/NONVOLATILE hooks and handle marking vmas

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: <536BB310.1050105@linaro.org>
Date:	Thu, 08 May 2014 09:38:40 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] MADV_VOLATILE: Add MADV_VOLATILE/NONVOLATILE hooks
 and handle marking vmas

On 05/07/2014 06:21 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:21:21PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> This patch introduces MADV_VOLATILE/NONVOLATILE flags to madvise(),
>> which allows for specifying ranges of memory as volatile, and able
>> to be discarded by the system.
>>
>> This initial patch simply adds flag handling to madvise, and the
>> vma handling, splitting and merging the vmas as needed, and marking
>> them with VM_VOLATILE.
>>
>> No purging or discarding of volatile ranges is done at this point.
>>
>> This a simplified implementation which reuses some of the logic
>> from Minchan's earlier efforts. So credit to Minchan for his work.
> Remove purged argument is really good thing but I'm not sure merging
> the feature into madvise syscall is good idea.
> My concern is how we support user who don't want SIGBUS.
> I believe we should support them because someuser(ex, sanitizer) really
> want to avoid MADV_NONVOLATILE call right before overwriting their cache
> (ex, If there was purged page for cyclic cache, user should call NONVOLATILE
> right before overwriting to avoid SIGBUS).

So... Why not use MADV_FREE then for this case?

Just to be clear, by moving back to madvise, I'm not trying to replace
MADV_FREE. I think you're work there is still useful and splitting the
semantics between the two is cleaner.


> Moreover, this changes made unmarking cost O(N) so I'd like to avoid
> NOVOLATILE syscall if possible.
Well, I think that was made in v13, but yes. NONVOLATILE is currently an
expensive operation in order to keep the semantics simpler, as requested
by Johannes and Kosaki-san.


> For me, SIGBUS is more special usecase for code pages but I believe
> both are reasonable for each usecase so my preference is MADV_VOLATILE
> is just zero-filled page and MADV_VOLATILE_SIGBUS, another new advise
> if you really want to merge volatile range feature with madvise.

This I disagree with. Even for non-code page cases, SIGBUS on volatile
page access is important for normal users who might accidentally touch
volatile data, so they know they are corrupting their data. I know
Johannes suggested this is simply a use-after-free issue, but I really
feel it results in having very strange semantics. And for those cases
where there is a benefit to zero-fill, MADV_FREE seems more appropriate.

thanks
-john



--
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/