| 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: <CAD4BONd5DZiKkGPGaYqEcVb+YubVDy43MNNQ8_yztDHWpf0Y7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:43:13 +0100
From: Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@...il.com>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
kirill@...temov.name, ak@...ux.intel.com, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 24/25] x86/mm: add speculative pagefault handling
Hi Laurent,
I am looking to add support for speculative page fault handling to
arm64 (effectively porting this patch) and had a few questions.
Apologies if I've missed an obvious explanation for my queries. I'm
jumping in bit late to the discussion.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Laurent Dufour
<ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>
> Try a speculative fault before acquiring mmap_sem, if it returns with
> VM_FAULT_RETRY continue with the mmap_sem acquisition and do the
> traditional fault.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>
> [Clearing of FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY is now done in
> handle_speculative_fault()]
> [Retry with usual fault path in the case VM_ERROR is returned by
> handle_speculative_fault(). This allows signal to be delivered]
> [Don't build SPF call if !CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT]
> [Try speculative fault path only for multi threaded processes]
> [Try reuse to the VMA fetch during the speculative path in case of retry]
> [Call reuse_spf_or_find_vma()]
> [Handle memory protection key fault]
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index 73bd8c95ac71..59f778386df5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> int fault, major = 0;
> unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE;
> - u32 pkey;
> + u32 pkey, *pt_pkey = &pkey;
>
> tsk = current;
> mm = tsk->mm;
> @@ -1310,6 +1310,30 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_INSTRUCTION;
>
> /*
> + * Do not try speculative page fault for kernel's pages and if
> + * the fault was due to protection keys since it can't be resolved.
> + */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT) &&
> + !(error_code & X86_PF_PK)) {
You can simplify this condition by dropping the IS_ENABLED() check as
you already provide an alternate implementation of
handle_speculative_fault() when CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT is not
defined.
> + fault = handle_speculative_fault(mm, address, flags, &vma);
> + if (fault != VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
> + perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_SPF, 1, regs, address);
> + /*
> + * Do not advertise for the pkey value since we don't
> + * know it.
> + * This is not a matter as we checked for X86_PF_PK
> + * earlier, so we should not handle pkey fault here,
> + * but to be sure that mm_fault_error() callees will
> + * not try to use it, we invalidate the pointer.
> + */
> + pt_pkey = NULL;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + } else {
> + vma = NULL;
> + }
The else part can be dropped if vma is initialised to NULL when it is
declared at the top of the function.
> +
> + /*
> * When running in the kernel we expect faults to occur only to
> * addresses in user space. All other faults represent errors in
> * the kernel and should generate an OOPS. Unfortunately, in the
> @@ -1342,7 +1366,8 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> might_sleep();
> }
>
> - vma = find_vma(mm, address);
> + if (!vma || !can_reuse_spf_vma(vma, address))
> + vma = find_vma(mm, address);
Is there a measurable benefit from reusing the vma?
Dropping the vma reference unconditionally after speculative page
fault handling gets rid of the implicit state when "vma != NULL"
(increased ref-count). I found it a bit confusing to follow.
> if (unlikely(!vma)) {
> bad_area(regs, error_code, address);
> return;
> @@ -1409,8 +1434,15 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY) {
> flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY;
> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_TRIED;
> - if (!fatal_signal_pending(tsk))
> + if (!fatal_signal_pending(tsk)) {
> + /*
> + * Do not try to reuse this vma and fetch it
> + * again since we will release the mmap_sem.
> + */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT))
> + vma = NULL;
Regardless of the above comment, can the vma be reset here unconditionally?
Thanks,
Punit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists