linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: numa: Do not clear PTEs or PMDs for NUMA hinting faults

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:53:09 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: numa: Do not clear PTEs or PMDs for NUMA hinting faults

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
>                 if (!prot_numa || !pmd_protnone(*pmd)) {
> -                       entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> -                       entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> +                       /*
> +                        * NUMA hinting update can avoid a clear and defer the
> +                        * flush as it is not a functional correctness issue if
> +                        * access occurs after the update and this avoids
> +                        * spurious faults.
> +                        */
> +                       if (prot_numa) {
> +                               entry = *pmd;
> +                               entry = pmd_mkprotnone(entry);
> +                       } else {
> +                               entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr,
> +                                                                 pmd);
> +                               entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> +                               BUG_ON(pmd_write(entry));
> +                       }
> +
>                         ret = HPAGE_PMD_NR;
>                         set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmd, entry);
> -                       BUG_ON(pmd_write(entry));

So I don't think this is right, nor is the new pte code.

You cannot just read the old pte entry, change it, and write it back.
That's fundamentally racy, and can drop any concurrent dirty or
accessed bit setting. And there are no locks you can use to protect
against that, since the accessed and dirty bit are set by hardware.

Now, losing the accessed bit doesn't matter - it's a small race, and
not a correctness issue. But potentially losing dirty bits is a data
loss problem.

Did the old prot_numa code do this too? Because if it did, it sounds
like it was just buggy.

                                            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/