| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20170421110714.GC20569@rapoport-lnx>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:07:16 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Review request: draft ioctl_userfaultfd(2) manual page
Hello Michael,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:11:18AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Mike,
> Hello Andrea (we need your help!),
>
> On 03/22/2017 02:54 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:11:07PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hello Andrea, Mike, and all,
> >>
> >> Mike: here's the split out page that describes the
> >> userfaultfd ioctl() operations.
> >>
> >> I'd like to get review input, especially from you and
> >> Andrea, but also anyone else, for the current version
> >> of this page, which includes quite a few FIXMEs to be
> >> sorted.
> >>
> >> I've shown the rendered version of the page below.
> >> The groff source is attached, and can also be found
> >> at the branch here:
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=draft_userfaultfd
> >>
> >> The new ioctl_userfaultfd(2) page follows this mail.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> NAME
> >> userfaultfd - create a file descriptor for handling page faults in user
> >> space
> >>
> >> SYNOPSIS
> >> #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> >>
> >> int ioctl(int fd, int cmd, ...);
> >>
> >> DESCRIPTION
> >> Various ioctl(2) operations can be performed on a userfaultfd object
> >> (created by a call to userfaultfd(2)) using calls of the form:
> >>
> >> ioctl(fd, cmd, argp);
> >>
> >> In the above, fd is a file descriptor referring to a userfaultfd
> >> object, cmd is one of the commands listed below, and argp is a pointer
> >> to a data structure that is specific to cmd.
> >>
> >> The various ioctl(2) operations are described below. The UFFDIO_API,
> >> UFFDIO_REGISTER, and UFFDIO_UNREGISTER operations are used to configure
> >> userfaultfd behavior. These operations allow the caller to choose what
> >> features will be enabled and what kinds of events will be delivered to
> >> the application. The remaining operations are range operations. These
> >> operations enable the calling application to resolve page-fault events
> >> in a consistent way.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Above: What does "consistent" mean? │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > Andrea, can you please help with this one?
>
> Let's see what Andrea has to say.
Actually, I though I've copied this text from Andrea's docs, but now I've
found out it was my wording and I really don't remember now what was my
intention for "consistent" :)
My guess is that I was thinking about atomicity of UFFDIO_COPY, or the fact
that from the faulting thread perspective the page fault handling is the
same whether it's done in kernel or via userfaultfd...
That said, maybe it'd be better just to drop "in a consistent way".
> >> UFFDIO_API
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Enable operation of the userfaultfd and perform API
> >> handshake. The argp argument is a pointer to a uffdio_api structure,
> >> defined as:
> >>
> >> struct uffdio_api {
> >> __u64 api; /* Requested API version (input) */
> >> __u64 features; /* Must be zero */
> >> __u64 ioctls; /* Available ioctl() operations (output) */
> >> };
> >>
> >> The api field denotes the API version requested by the application.
> >> Before the call, the features field must be initialized to zero.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Above: Why must the 'features' field be initialized │
> >> │to zero? │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > Until 4.11 the only supported feature is delegation of missing page fault
> > and the UFFDIO_FEATURES bitmask is 0.
>
> So, the thing that was not clear, but now I think I understand:
> 'features' is an input field where one can ask about supported features
> (but none are supported, before Linux 4.11). Is that correct?
Yes.
> I've changed the text here to read:
>
> Before the call, the features field must be initialized
> to zero. In the future, it is intended that this field can be
> used to ask whether particular features are supported.
>
> Seem okay?
Yes.
Just the future is only a week or two from today as we are at 4.11-rc7 :)
> > There's a check in uffdio_api call that the user is not trying to enable
> > any other functionality and it asserts that uffdio_api.featurs is zero [1].
> > Starting from 4.11 the features negotiation is different. Now uffdio_call
> > verifies that it can support features the application requested [2].
>
> Okay.
>
> >> The kernel verifies that it can support the requested API version, and
> >> sets the features and ioctls fields to bit masks representing all the
> >> available features and the generic ioctl(2) operations available. Cur‐
> >> rently, zero (i.e., no feature bits) is placed in the features field.
> >> The returned ioctls field can contain the following bits:
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │This user-space API seems not fully polished. Why │
> >> │are there not constants defined for each of the bit- │
> >> │mask values listed below? │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >>
> >> 1 << _UFFDIO_API
> >> The UFFDIO_API operation is supported.
> >>
> >> 1 << _UFFDIO_REGISTER
> >> The UFFDIO_REGISTER operation is supported.
> >>
> >> 1 << _UFFDIO_UNREGISTER
> >> The UFFDIO_UNREGISTER operation is supported.
> >
> > Well, I tend to agree. I believe the original intention was to use the
> > OR'ed mask, like UFFD_API_IOCTLS.
> > Andrea, can you add somthing?
>
> Yes, Andrea, please!
>
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Is the above description of the 'ioctls' field cor‐ │
> >> │rect? Does more need to be said? │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > This is correct. I wouldn't add anything else.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. On error, -1 is returned
> >> and errno is set to indicate the cause of the error. Possible errors
> >> include:
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> > G> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Is the following error list correct? │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > There's also -EFAULT in case copy_{from,to}_user fails.
>
> Okay -- I have added that error.
>
> >>
> >> EINVAL The userfaultfd has already been enabled by a previous UFF‐
> >> DIO_API operation.
> >>
> >> EINVAL The API version requested in the api field is not supported by
> >> this kernel, or the features field was not zero.
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │In the above error case, the returned 'uffdio_api' │
> >> │structure zeroed out. Why is this done? This should │
> >> │be explained in the manual page. │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > In my understanding the uffdio_api structure is zeroed to allow the caller
> > to distinguish the reasons for -EINVAL.
>
> Andrea, can you please help here?
>
>
> >> UFFDIO_REGISTER
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Register a memory address range with the user‐
> >> faultfd object. The argp argument is a pointer to a uffdio_register
> >> structure, defined as:
> >>
> >> struct uffdio_range {
> >> __u64 start; /* Start of range */
> >> __u64 len; /* Length of rnage (bytes) */
> >> };
> >>
> >> struct uffdio_register {
> >> struct uffdio_range range;
> >> __u64 mode; /* Desired mode of operation (input) */
> >> __u64 ioctls; /* Available ioctl() operations (output) */
> >> };
> >>
> >>
> >> The range field defines a memory range starting at start and continuing
> >> for len bytes that should be handled by the userfaultfd.
> >>
> >> The mode field defines the mode of operation desired for this memory
> >> region. The following values may be bitwise ORed to set the user‐
> >> faultfd mode for the specified range:
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING
> >> Track page faults on missing pages.
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP
> >> Track page faults on write-protected pages.
> >>
> >> Currently, the only supported mode is UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING.
> >>
> >> If the operation is successful, the kernel modifies the ioctls bit-mask
> >> field to indicate which ioctl(2) operations are available for the spec‐
> >> ified range. This returned bit mask is as for UFFDIO_API.
> >>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. On error, -1 is returned
> >> and errno is set to indicate the cause of the error. Possible errors
> >> include:
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Is the following error list correct? │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > Here again it maybe -EFAULT to indicate copy_{from,to}_user failure.
> > And, UFFDIO_REGISTER may return -ENOMEM if the process is exiting and the
> > mm_struct has gone by the time userfault grabs it.
>
> Okay -- added EFAULT. I think I'll skip ENOMEM for the moment, but
> will note the possibility in the page source.
>
> >> EBUSY A mapping in the specified range is registered with another
> >> userfaultfd object.
> >>
> >> EINVAL An invalid or unsupported bit was specified in the mode field;
> >> or the mode field was zero.
> >>
> >> EINVAL There is no mapping in the specified address range.
> >>
> >> EINVAL range.start or range.len is not a multiple of the system page
> >> size; or, range.len is zero; or these fields are otherwise
> >> invalid.
> >>
> >> EINVAL There as an incompatible mapping in the specified address range.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Above: What does "incompatible" mean? │
> >> │ │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > Up to 4.10 userfault context may be registered only for MAP_ANONYMOUS |
> > MAP_PRIVATE mappings.
>
> Hmmm -- this restriction is not actually mentioned in the description
> of UFFDIO_REGISTER. So, at the start of the description of that operation,
> I've made the text as follows:
>
> [[
> .SS UFFDIO_REGISTER
> (Since Linux 4.3.)
> Register a memory address range with the userfaultfd object.
> The pages in the range must be "compatible".
> In the current implementation,
> .\" According to Mike Rapoport, this will change in Linux 4.11.
> only private anonymous ranges are compatible for registering with
> .BR UFFDIO_REGISTER .
> ]]
>
> Okay?
Yes.
> >> UFFDIO_UNREGISTER
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Unregister a memory address range from userfaultfd.
> >> The address range to unregister is specified in the uffdio_range struc‐
> >> ture pointed to by argp.
> >>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. On error, -1 is returned
> >> and errno is set to indicate the cause of the error. Possible errors
> >> include:
> >>
> >> EINVAL Either the start or the len field of the ufdio_range structure
> >> was not a multiple of the system page size; or the len field was
> >> zero; or these fields were otherwise invalid.
> >>
> >> EINVAL There as an incompatible mapping in the specified address range.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Above: What does "incompatible" mean? │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > The same comments as for UFFDIO_REGISTER apply here as well.
>
> Okay. I changed the introductory text on UFFDIO_UNREGISTER to say:
>
> [[
> .SS UFFDIO_UNREGISTER
> (Since Linux 4.3.)
> Unregister a memory address range from userfaultfd.
> The pages in the range must be "compatible" (see the description of
> .BR UFFDIO_REGISTER .)
> ]]
>
> Okay?
Yes.
> >> EINVAL There was no mapping in the specified address range.
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_COPY
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Atomically copy a continuous memory chunk into the
> >> userfault registered range and optionally wake up the blocked thread.
> >> The source and destination addresses and the number of bytes to copy
> >> are specified by the src, dst, and len fields of the uffdio_copy struc‐
> >> ture pointed to by argp:
> >>
> >> struct uffdio_copy {
> >> __u64 dst; /* Source of copy */
> >> __u64 src; /* Destinate of copy */
> >> __u64 len; /* Number of bytes to copy */
> >> __u64 mode; /* Flags controlling behavior of copy */
> >> __s64 copy; /* Number of bytes copied, or negated error */
> >> };
> >>
> >> The following value may be bitwise ORed in mode to change the behavior
> >> of the UFFDIO_COPY operation:
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_DONTWAKE
> >> Do not wake up the thread that waits for page-fault resolution
> >>
> >> The copy field is used by the kernel to return the number of bytes that
> >> was actually copied, or an error (a negated errno-style value).
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Above: Why is the 'copy' field used to return error │
> >> │values? This should be explained in the manual │
> >> │page. │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > Andrea, can you help with this one, please?
>
> Yes, Andrea, please.
>
> >> If the value returned in copy doesn't match the value that was speci‐
> >> fied in len, the operation fails with the error EAGAIN. The copy field
> >> is output-only; it is not read by the UFFDIO_COPY operation.
> >>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. In this case, the entire
> >> area was copied. On error, -1 is returned and errno is set to indicate
> >> the cause of the error. Possible errors include:
> >>
> >> EAGAIN The number of bytes copied (i.e., the value returned in the copy
> >> field) does not equal the value that was specified in the len
> >> field.
> >>
> >> EINVAL Either dst or len was not a multiple of the system page size, or
> >> the range specified by src and len or dst and len was invalid.
> >>
> >> EINVAL An invalid bit was specified in the mode field.
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Zero out a memory range registered with user‐
> >> faultfd. The requested range is specified by the range field of the
> >> uffdio_zeropage structure pointed to by argp:
> >>
> >> struct uffdio_zeropage {
> >> struct uffdio_range range;
> >> __u64 mode; /* Flags controlling behavior of copy */
> >> __s64 zeropage; /* Number of bytes zeroed, or negated error */
> >> };
> >>
> >> The following value may be bitwise ORed in mode to change the behavior
> >> of the UFFDIO_ZERO operation:
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE_MODE_DONTWAKE
> >> Do not wake up the thread that waits for page-fault resolution.
> >>
> >> The zeropage field is used by the kernel to return the number of bytes
> >> that was actually zeroed, or an error in the same manner as UFF‐
> >> DIO_COPY.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Why is the 'zeropage' field used to return error │
> >> │values? This should be explained in the manual │
> >> │page. │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>
> Help is still needed for this FIXME!
It would be pretty much the same as for the 'copy' field in uffdio_copy...
> >> If the value returned in the zeropage field doesn't match the value
> >> that was specified in range.len, the operation fails with the error
> >> EAGAIN. The zeropage field is output-only; it is not read by the UFF‐
> >> DIO_ZERO operation.
> >>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. In this case, the entire
> >> area was zeroed. On error, -1 is returned and errno is set to indicate
> >> the cause of the error. Possible errors include:
> >>
> >> EAGAIN The number of bytes zeroed (i.e., the value returned in the
> >> zeropage field) does not equal the value that was specified in
> >> the range.len field.
> >>
> >> EINVAL Either range.start or range.len was not a multiple of the system
> >> page size; or range.len was zero; or the range specified was
> >> invalid.
> >>
> >> EINVAL An invalid bit was specified in the mode field.
> >>
> >> UFFDIO_WAKE
> >> (Since Linux 4.3.) Wake up the thread waiting for page-fault resolu‐
> >> tion on a specified memory address range. The argp argument is a
> >> pointer to a uffdio_range structure (shown above) that specifies the
> >> address range.
> >>
> >>
> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> │FIXME │
> >> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> >> │Need more detail here. How is the UFFDIO_WAKE opera‐ │
> >> │tion used? │
> >> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > The UFFDIO_WAKE operation is used in conjunction with
> > UFFDIO_{COPY,ZEROPAGE} operations that have
> > UFFDIO_{COPY,ZEROPAGE}_MODE_DONTWAKE bit set in the mode field.
> > The userfault monitor can perform several UFFDIO_{COPY,ZEROPAGE} calls in a
> > batch and then explicitly wake up the faulting thread using UFFDIO_WAKE.
>
> Perfect! I've tweaked that text a little and added to the page.
>
> >> This ioctl(2) operation returns 0 on success. On error, -1 is returned
> >> and errno is set to indicate the cause of the error. Possible errors
> >> include:
> >>
> >> EINVAL The start or the len field of the ufdio_range structure was not
> >> a multiple of the system page size; or len was zero; or the
> >> specified range was otherwise invalid.
> >>
> >> RETURN VALUE
> >> See descriptions of the individual operations, above.
> >>
> >> ERRORS
> >> See descriptions of the individual operations, above. In addition, the
> >> following general errors can occur for all of the operations described
> >> above:
> >>
> >> EFAULT argp does not point to a valid memory address.
> >>
> >> EINVAL (For all operations except UFFDIO_API.) The userfaultfd object
> >> has not yet been enabled (via the UFFDIO_API operation).
> >>
> >> CONFORMING TO
> >> These ioctl(2) operations are Linux-specific.
> >>
> >> EXAMPLE
> >> See userfaultfd(2).
> >>
> >> SEE ALSO
> >> ioctl(2), mmap(2), userfaultfd(2)
> >>
> >> Documentation/vm/userfaultfd.txt in the Linux kernel source tree
> >>
> >
> > [1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/fs/userfaultfd.c#L1199
> > [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/userfaultfd.c#n1680
>
> The current version of the two pages has been pushed to
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=draft_userfaultfd
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Kerrisk
> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
> Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists