linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 23/26] userfaultfd: wp: don't wake up when doing write protect

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:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:29:33 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 23/26] userfaultfd: wp: don't wake up when doing write
 protect

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:24:52PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:09:35PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:56:29AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > It does not make sense to try to wake up any waiting thread when we're
> > > write-protecting a memory region.  Only wake up when resolving a write
> > > protected page fault.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/userfaultfd.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > index 81962d62520c..f1f61a0278c2 100644
> > > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -1771,6 +1771,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_writeprotect(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> > >  	struct uffdio_writeprotect uffdio_wp;
> > >  	struct uffdio_writeprotect __user *user_uffdio_wp;
> > >  	struct userfaultfd_wake_range range;
> > > +	bool mode_wp, mode_dontwake;
> > > 
> > >  	if (READ_ONCE(ctx->mmap_changing))
> > >  		return -EAGAIN;
> > > @@ -1789,18 +1790,20 @@ static int userfaultfd_writeprotect(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> > >  	if (uffdio_wp.mode & ~(UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_DONTWAKE |
> > >  			       UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP))
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > -	if ((uffdio_wp.mode & UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP) &&
> > > -	     (uffdio_wp.mode & UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_DONTWAKE))
> > > +
> > > +	mode_wp = uffdio_wp.mode & UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP;
> > > +	mode_dontwake = uffdio_wp.mode & UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_DONTWAKE;
> > > +
> > > +	if (mode_wp && mode_dontwake)
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > This actually means the opposite of the commit message text ;-)
> > 
> > Is any dependency of _WP and _DONTWAKE needed at all?
> 
> So this is indeed confusing at least, because both you and Jerome have
> asked the same question... :)
> 
> My understanding is that we don't have any reason to wake up any
> thread when we are write-protecting a range, in that sense the flag
> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_DONTWAKE is already meaningless in the
> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT ioctl context.  So before everything here's how
> these flags are defined:
> 
> struct uffdio_writeprotect {
> 	struct uffdio_range range;
> 	/* !WP means undo writeprotect. DONTWAKE is valid only with !WP */
> #define UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP		((__u64)1<<0)
> #define UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_DONTWAKE	((__u64)1<<1)
> 	__u64 mode;
> };
> 
> To make it clear, we simply define it as "DONTWAKE is valid only with
> !WP".  When with that, "mode_wp && mode_dontwake" is indeed a
> meaningless flag combination.  Though please note that it does not
> mean that the operation ("don't wake up the thread") is meaningless -
> that's what we'll do no matter what when WP==1.  IMHO it's only about
> the interface not the behavior.
> 
> I don't have a good way to make this clearer because firstly we'll
> need the WP flag to mark whether we're protecting or unprotecting the
> pages.  Later on, we need DONTWAKE for page fault handling case to
> mark that we don't want to wake up the waiting thread now.  So both
> the flags have their reason to stay so far.  Then with all these in
> mind what I can think of is only to forbid using DONTWAKE in WP case,
> and that's how above definition comes (I believe, because it was
> defined that way even before I started to work on it and I think it
> makes sense).

There's no argument how DONTWAKE can be used with !WP. The
userfaultfd_writeprotect() is called in response of the uffd monitor to WP
page fault, it asks to clear write protection to some range, but it does
not want to wake the faulting thread yet but rather it will use uffd_wake()
later.

Still, I can't grok the usage of DONTWAKE with WP=1. In my understanding,
in this case userfaultfd_writeprotect() is called unrelated to page faults,
and the monitored thread runs freely, so why it should be waked at all?

And what happens, if the thread is waiting on a missing page fault and we
do userfaultfd_writeprotect(WP=1) at the same time?

> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Peter Xu
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.