| 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: <20200110023029.GB16823@richard>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:30:29 +0800
From: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/rmap: fix and simplify reusing mergeable
anon_vma as parent when fork
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 11:54:21AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
>On 09/01/2020 05.52, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:40:44PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> > On 08/01/2020 05.32, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 01:19:56PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> > > > This fixes some misconceptions in commit 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reuse
>> > > > mergeable anon_vma as parent when fork"). It merges anon-vma in unexpected
>> > > > way but fortunately still produces valid anon-vma tree, so nothing crashes.
>> > > >
>> > > > If in parent VMAs: SRC1 SRC2 .. SRCn share anon-vma ANON0, then after fork
>> > > > before all patches in child process related VMAs: DST1 DST2 .. DSTn will
>> > > > fork indepndent anon-vmas: ANON1 ANON2 .. ANONn (each is child of ANON0).
>> > > > Before this patch only DST1 will fork new ANON1 and following DST2 .. DSTn
>> > > > will share parent's ANON0 (i.e. anon-vma tree is valid but isn't optimal).
>> > > > With this patch DST1 will create new ANON1 and DST2 .. DSTn will share it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Root problem caused by initialization order in dup_mmap(): vma->vm_prev
>> > > > is set after calling anon_vma_fork(). Thus in anon_vma_fork() it points to
>> > > > previous VMA in parent mm.
>> > > >
>> > > > Second problem is hidden behind first one: assumption "Parent has vm_prev,
>> > > > which implies we have vm_prev" is wrong if first VMA in parent mm has set
>> > > > flag VM_DONTCOPY. Luckily prev->anon_vma doesn't dereference NULL pointer
>> > > > because in current code 'prev' actually is same as 'pprev'.
>> > > >
>> > > > Third hidden problem is linking between VMA and anon-vmas whose pages it
>> > > > could contain. Loop in anon_vma_clone() attaches only parent's anon-vmas,
>> > > > shared anon-vma isn't attached. But every mapped page stays reachable in
>> > > > rmap because we erroneously share anon-vma from parent's previous VMA.
>> > > >
>> > > > This patch moves sharing logic out of anon_vma_clone() into more specific
>> > > > anon_vma_fork() because this supposed to work only at fork() and simply
>> > > > reuses anon_vma from previous VMA if it is forked from the same anon-vma.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>> > > > Reported-by: Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@...il.com>
>> > > > Fixes: 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reuse mergeable anon_vma as parent when fork")
>> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CALYGNiNzz+dxHX0g5-gNypUQc3B=8_Scp53-NTOh=zWsdUuHAw@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
>> > > > ---
>> > > > include/linux/rmap.h | 3 ++-
>> > > > kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>> > > > mm/rmap.c | 23 +++++++++--------------
>> > > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > > > index 988d176472df..560e4480dcd0 100644
>> > > > --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > > > +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> > > > @@ -143,7 +143,8 @@ void anon_vma_init(void); /* create anon_vma_cachep */
>> > > > int __anon_vma_prepare(struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > > > void unlink_anon_vmas(struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > > > int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > > > -int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *);
>> > > > +int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma,
>> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *prev);
>> > > >
>> > > > static inline int anon_vma_prepare(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > > > {
>> > > > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> > > > index 2508a4f238a3..c33626993831 100644
>> > > > --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> > > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> > > > @@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ static __latent_entropy int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> > > > tmp->anon_vma = NULL;
>> > > > if (anon_vma_prepare(tmp))
>> > > > goto fail_nomem_anon_vma_fork;
>> > > > - } else if (anon_vma_fork(tmp, mpnt))
>> > > > + } else if (anon_vma_fork(tmp, mpnt, prev))
>> > > > goto fail_nomem_anon_vma_fork;
>> > > > tmp->vm_flags &= ~(VM_LOCKED | VM_LOCKONFAULT);
>> > > > tmp->vm_next = tmp->vm_prev = NULL;
>> > > > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> > > > index b3e381919835..3c1e04389291 100644
>> > > > --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> > > > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> > > > @@ -269,19 +269,6 @@ int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *dst, struct vm_area_struct *src)
>> > > > {
>> > > > struct anon_vma_chain *avc, *pavc;
>> > > > struct anon_vma *root = NULL;
>> > > > - struct vm_area_struct *prev = dst->vm_prev, *pprev = src->vm_prev;
>> > > > -
>> > > > - /*
>> > > > - * If parent share anon_vma with its vm_prev, keep this sharing in in
>> > > > - * child.
>> > > > - *
>> > > > - * 1. Parent has vm_prev, which implies we have vm_prev.
>> > > > - * 2. Parent and its vm_prev have the same anon_vma.
>> > > > - */
>> > > > - if (!dst->anon_vma && src->anon_vma &&
>> > > > - pprev && pprev->anon_vma == src->anon_vma)
>> > > > - dst->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>> > > > -
>> > > >
>> > > > list_for_each_entry_reverse(pavc, &src->anon_vma_chain, same_vma) {
>> > > > struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
>> > > > @@ -332,7 +319,8 @@ int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *dst, struct vm_area_struct *src)
>> > > > * the corresponding VMA in the parent process is attached to.
>> > > > * Returns 0 on success, non-zero on failure.
>> > > > */
>> > > > -int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma)
>> > > > +int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma,
>> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *prev)
>> > > > {
>> > > > struct anon_vma_chain *avc;
>> > > > struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
>> > > > @@ -342,6 +330,13 @@ int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma)
>> > > > if (!pvma->anon_vma)
>> > > > return 0;
>> > > >
>> > > > + /* Share anon_vma with previous VMA if it has the same parent. */
>> > > > + if (prev && prev->anon_vma &&
>> > > > + prev->anon_vma->parent == pvma->anon_vma) {
>> > > > + vma->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>> > > > + return anon_vma_clone(vma, prev);
>> > > > + }
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > I am afraid this one change the intended behavior. Let's put a chart to
>> > > describe.
>> > >
>> > > Commit 4e4a9eb92133 ("mm/rmap.c: reusemergeable anon_vma as parent when
>> > > fork") tries to improve the following situation.
>> > >
>> > > Before the commit, the behavior is like this:
>> > >
>> > > Parent process:
>> > >
>> > > +-----+
>> > > | pav |<-----------------+----------------------+
>> > > +-----+ | |
>> > > | |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > > |pprev | |pvma |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > >
>> > > Child Process
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +-----+ +-----+
>> > > | av1 |<-----------------+ | av2 |<------------+
>> > > +-----+ | +-----+ |
>> > > | |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > > |prev | |vma |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Parent pprev and pvma share the same anon_vma due to
>> > > find_mergeable_anon_vma(). While the anon_vma_clone() would pick up different
>> > > anon_vma for child process's vma.
>> > >
>> > > The purpose of my commit is to give child process the following shape.
>> > >
>> > > +-----+
>> > > | av |<-----------------+----------------------+
>> > > +-----+ | |
>> > > | |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > > |prev | |vma |
>> > > +-----------+ +-----------+
>> > >
>> > > After this, we reduce the extra "av2" for child process. But yes, because of
>> > > the two reasons you found, it didn't do the exact thing.
>> > >
>> > > While if my understanding is correct, the anon_vma_clone() would pick up any
>> > > anon_vma in its process tree, except parent's. If this fails to get a reusable
>> > > one, anon_vma_fork() would allocate one, whose parent is pvma->anon_vma.
>> > >
>> > > Let me summarise original behavior:
>> > >
>> > > * if anon_vma_clone succeed, it find one anon_vma in the process tree, but
>> > > it could not be pvma->anon_vma
>> > > * if anon_vma_clone fail, it will allocate a new anon_vma and its parent is
>> > > pvma->anon_vam
>> > >
>> > > Then take a look into your code here.
>> > >
>> > > "prev->anon_vma->parent == pvma->anon_vma" means prev->anon_vma parent is
>> > > pvma's anon_vma. If my understanding is correct, this just match the second
>> > > case. For "prev", we didn't find a reusable anon_vma and allocate a new one.
>> > >
>> > > But how about the first case? prev reuse an anon_vma in the process tree which
>> > > is not parent's?
>> >
>> > If anon_vma_clone() pick old anon-vma for first vma in sharing chain (prev)
>> > then second vma (vma) will fork new anon-vma (unless pick another old anon-vma),
>> > then third vma will share it. And so on.
>>
>> No, I am afraid you are not correct here. Or I don't understand your sentence.
>>
>> This is my understanding about the behavior before my commit. Suppose av1 and
>> av2 are both reused from old anon_vma. And if my understanding is correct,
>> they are different from pvma->anon_vma. Then how your code match this
>> situatioin?
>>
>> +-----+ +-----+
>> | av1 |<-----------------+ | av2 |<------------+
>> +-----+ | +-----+ |
>> | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> |prev | |vma |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>>
>> Would you explain your understanding the second and third vma in your
>> sentence? Which case you are trying to illustrate?
>
>series of vma in parent with shared AV:
>
>SRC1 - AV0
>SRC2 - AV0
>SRC3 - AV0
>...
>SRCn - AV0
>
>in child after fork
>
>DST1 - AV_OLD_1 (some old vma, picked by anon_vma_clone) plus DST1 is attached to same AVs as SRC1
>DST2 - AV_OLD_2 (other old vma) plus DST1 is attached to same AVs as SRC2
>DST2 - AV1 prev AV parent does not match AV0, no old vma found for reusing -> allocate new one (child of AV0)
>DST3 - AV1 - DST2->AV->parent == SRC3->AV (AV0) -> share AV with prev
>DST4 - AV1 - same thing
>...
>DSTn - AV1
>
Yes, your code works for DST3..DSTn. They will pick up AV1 since
(DST2->AV->parent == SRC3->AV).
My question is why DST1 and DST2 has different AV? The purpose of my patch
tries to make child has the same topology and parent. So the ideal look of
child is:
DST1 - AV1
DST2 - AV1
DST2 - AV1
DST3 - AV1
DST4 - AV1
Would you mind putting more words on DST1 and DST2? I didn't fully understand
the logic here.
Thanks
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists