linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] userfaultfd: add new syscall to provide memory externalization

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53B4B833.9010508@mit.edu>
Date:	Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:56:03 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	"\"Dr. David Alan Gilbert\"" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	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>, 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>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	"Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@...wei.com>,
	Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@...inux.co.jp>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] userfaultfd: add new syscall to provide memory
 externalization

On 07/02/2014 09:50 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Once an userfaultfd is created MADV_USERFAULT regions talks through
> the userfaultfd protocol with the thread responsible for doing the
> memory externalization of the process.
> 
> The protocol starts by userland writing the requested/preferred
> USERFAULT_PROTOCOL version into the userfault fd (64bit write), if
> kernel knows it, it will ack it by allowing userland to read 64bit
> from the userfault fd that will contain the same 64bit
> USERFAULT_PROTOCOL version that userland asked. Otherwise userfault
> will read __u64 value -1ULL (aka USERFAULTFD_UNKNOWN_PROTOCOL) and it
> will have to try again by writing an older protocol version if
> suitable for its usage too, and read it back again until it stops
> reading -1ULL. After that the userfaultfd protocol starts.
> 
> The protocol consists in the userfault fd reads 64bit in size
> providing userland the fault addresses. After a userfault address has
> been read and the fault is resolved by userland, the application must
> write back 128bits in the form of [ start, end ] range (64bit each)
> that will tell the kernel such a range has been mapped. Multiple read
> userfaults can be resolved in a single range write. poll() can be used
> to know when there are new userfaults to read (POLLIN) and when there
> are threads waiting a wakeup through a range write (POLLOUT).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> +static int userfaultfd_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *f)
> +{
> +	struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data;
> +	int ret;
> +	wait_queue_t *wq;
> +	struct userfaultfd_wait_queue *uwq;
> +	unsigned long pending = 0, total = 0;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&ctx->fault_wqh.lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(wq, &ctx->fault_wqh.task_list, task_list) {
> +		uwq = container_of(wq, struct userfaultfd_wait_queue, wq);
> +		if (uwq->pending)
> +			pending++;
> +		total++;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_wqh.lock);
> +
> +	ret = seq_printf(m, "pending:\t%lu\ntotal:\t%lu\n", pending, total);

This should show the protocol version, too.

> +
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE1(userfaultfd, int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, error;
> +	struct file *file;

This looks like it can't be used more than once in a process.  That will
be unfortunate for libraries.  Would it be feasible to either have
userfaultfd claim a range of addresses or for a vma to be explicitly
associated with a userfaultfd?  (In the latter case, giant PROT_NONE
MAP_NORESERVE mappings could be used.)

--
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/