| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:50:14 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: "Wang, Yalin" <Yalin.Wang@...ymobile.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: change mm_advise_free to clear page dirty
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:37:14PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:50:29PM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@...il.com] On Behalf Of Minchan Kim
> > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:44 PM
> > > To: Wang, Yalin
> > > Cc: Michal Hocko; Andrew Morton; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > > mm@...ck.org; Rik van Riel; Johannes Weiner; Mel Gorman; Shaohua Li
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: change mm_advise_free to clear page dirty
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:48:48PM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@...il.com] On Behalf Of Minchan
> > > Kim
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:28 PM
> > > > > To: Wang, Yalin
> > > > > Cc: Michal Hocko; Andrew Morton; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > > > > mm@...ck.org; Rik van Riel; Johannes Weiner; Mel Gorman; Shaohua Li
> > > > > Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: change mm_advise_free to clear page dirty
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote:
> > > > > > This patch add ClearPageDirty() to clear AnonPage dirty flag,
> > > > > > the Anonpage mapcount must be 1, so that this page is only used by
> > > > > > the current process, not shared by other process like fork().
> > > > > > if not clear page dirty for this anon page, the page will never be
> > > > > > treated as freeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case of anonymous page, it has PG_dirty when VM adds it to
> > > > > swap cache and clear it in clear_page_dirty_for_io. That's why
> > > > > I added ClearPageDirty if we found it in swapcache.
> > > > > What case am I missing? It would be better to understand if you
> > > > > describe specific scenario.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang <yalin.wang@...ymobile.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > mm/madvise.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> > > > > > index 6d0fcb8..257925a 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/madvise.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> > > > > > @@ -297,22 +297,17 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> > > > > unsigned long addr,
> > > > > > continue;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, ptent);
> > > > > > - if (!page)
> > > > > > + if (!page || !PageAnon(page) || !trylock_page(page))
> > > > > > continue;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (PageSwapCache(page)) {
> > > > > > - if (!trylock_page(page))
> > > > > > + if (!try_to_free_swap(page))
> > > > > > continue;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - if (!try_to_free_swap(page)) {
> > > > > > - unlock_page(page);
> > > > > > - continue;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - ClearPageDirty(page);
> > > > > > - unlock_page(page);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + if (page_mapcount(page) == 1)
> > > > > > + ClearPageDirty(page);
> > > > > > + unlock_page(page);
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * Some of architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB
> > > > > > * with set_pte_at and tlb_remove_tlb_entry so for
> > > > > > --
> > > > Yes, for page which is in SwapCache, it is correct,
> > > > But for anon page which is not in SwapCache, it is always
> > > > PageDirty(), so we should also clear dirty bit to make it freeable,
> > >
> > > No. Every anon page starts from !PageDirty and it has PG_dirty
> > > only when it's addeded into swap cache. If vm_swap_full turns on,
> > > a page in swap cache could have PG_dirty via try_to_free_swap again.
> >
> > mmm..
> > sometimes you can see an anon page PageDirty(), but it is not in swapcache,
> > for example, handle_pte_fault()-->do_swap_page()-->try_to_free_swap(),
> > at this time, the page is deleted from swapcache and is marked PageDirty(),
>
> That's what I missed. It's clear and would be simple patch so
> could you send a patch to fix this issue with detailed description
> like above?
>
> >
> >
> > > So, Do you have concern about swapped-out pages when MADV_FREE is
> > > called? If so, please look at my patch.
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/25/43
> > >
> > > It will zap the swapped out page. So, this is not a issue any more?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Another problem is that if an anon page is shared by more than one
> > > process,
> > > > This happened when fork(), the anon page will be copy on write,
> > > > In this case, we should not clear page dirty,
> > > > This is not correct for other process which don't call MADV_FREE syscall.
> > >
> > > You mean we shouldn't inherit MADV_FREE attribute?
> > > Why?
> >
> > Is it correct behavior if code like this:
> >
> > Parent:
> > ptr1 = malloc(len);
> > memset(ptr1, 'a', len);
> > fork();
> > if (I am parent)
> > madvise_free(ptr1, len);
> >
> > child:
> > sleep(10);
> > parse_data(ptr1, len); // child may see zero, not 'a',
> > // is it the right behavior that the programer want?
> >
> > Because child don't call madvise_free(), so it should see 'a', not zero page.
> > Isn't it ?
>
> You're absolutely right. Thanks.
> But I doubt your fix is best. Most of fork will do exec soonish so
> it's not a good idea to make MADV_FREE void even though hinted pages
> are shared when the syscall was called.
> How about checking the page is shared or not in reclaim path?
> If it is still shared, we shouldn't discard it.
I got confused. With looking at copy_one_pte, it copys from src_pte
and not clear dirty bit if it's not a shared mapping.
If so, in your example, child pte has pte dirty bit on while parent
has clean bit by madvise_free so that VM shouldn't discard the page.
No?
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists