linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/madvise: allow MADV_DONTNEED to free memory that is MLOCK

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:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:32:19 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, emunson@...bm.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/madvise: allow MADV_DONTNEED to free memory that is
 MLOCK_ONFAULT

On 06/12/2018 04:11 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/12/2018 03:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 11-06-18 12:23:58, Jason Baron wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2018 11:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> So can we start discussing whether we want to allow MADV_DONTNEED on
>>>> mlocked areas and what downsides it might have? Sure it would turn the
>>>> strong mlock guarantee to have the whole vma resident but is this
>>>> acceptable for something that is an explicit request from the owner of
>>>> the memory?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If its being explicity requested by the owner it makes sense to me. I
>>> guess there could be a concern about this breaking some userspace that
>>> relied on MADV_DONTNEED not freeing locked memory?
>>
>> Yes, this is always the fear when changing user visible behavior.  I can
>> imagine that a userspace allocator calling MADV_DONTNEED on free could
>> break. The same would apply to MLOCK_ONFAULT/MCL_ONFAULT though. We
>> have the new flag much shorter so the probability is smaller but the
>> problem is very same. So I _think_ we should treat both the same because
>> semantically they are indistinguishable from the MADV_DONTNEED POV. Both
>> remove faulted and mlocked pages. Mlock, once applied, should guarantee
>> no later major fault and MADV_DONTNEED breaks that obviously.

I think more concerning than guaranteeing no later major fault is
possible data loss, e.g. replacing data with zero-filled pages.

The madvise manpage is also quite specific about not allowing
MADV_DONTNEED and MADV_FREE for locked pages.

So I don't think we should risk changing that for all mlocked pages.
Maybe we can risk MCL_ONFAULT, since it's relatively new and has few users?

>> So the more I think about it the more I am worried about this but I am
>> more and more convinced that making ONFAULT special is just a wrong way
>> around this.
>>
> 
> Ok, I share the concern that there is a chance that userspace is relying
> on MADV_DONTNEED not free'ing locked memory. In that case, what if we
> introduce a MADV_DONTNEED_FORCE, which does everything that
> MADV_DONTNEED currently does but in addition will also free mlock areas.
> That way there is no concern about breaking something.

A new niche case flag? Sad :(

BTW I didn't get why we should allow this for MADV_DONTNEED but not
MADV_FREE. Can you expand on that?

> Thanks,
> 
> -Jason
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>