linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 00/16] mm: Page fault enhancements

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]

Message-ID: <20200309195100.GD4206@xz-x1>
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:51:00 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Bobby Powers <bobbypowers@...il.com>,
        Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 00/16] mm: Page fault enhancements

On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 01:12:34PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > Yes, IIUC the race can happen like this in your below test:
> > 
> >      main thread          uffd thread             disgard thread
> >      ===========          ===========             ==============
> >      access page
> >        uffd page fault
> >          wait for page
> >                           UFFDIO_ZEROCOPY
> >                             put a page P there
> >                                                   MADV_DONTNEED on P
> >                             wakeup main thread
> >          return from fault
> >        page still missing
> >        uffd page fault again
> >        (without ALLOW_RETRY)
> >        --> SIGBUS.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> >> Can we please have a way to identify that this "feature" is available?
> >> I'd appreciate a new read-only UFFD_FEAT_ , so we can detect this from
> >> user space easily and use concurrent discards without crashing our applications.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how others think about it, but to me this still fells
> > into the bucket of "solving an existing problem" rather than a
> > feature.  Also note that this should change the behavior for the page
> > fault logic in general, rather than an uffd-only change. So I'm also
> > not sure whether UFFD_FEAT_* suites here even if we want it.
> 
> So, are we planning on backporting this to stable kernels?

I don't have a plan so far.  I'm still at the phase to only worry
about whether it can be at least merged in master.. :)

I would think it won't worth it to backport this to stables though,
considering that it could potentially change quite a bit for faulting
procedures, and after all the issues we're fixing shouldn't be common
to general users.

> 
> Imagine using this in QEMU/KVM to allow discards (e.g., balloon
> inflation) while postcopy is active . You certainly don't want random
> guest crashes. So either, we treat this as a fix (and backport) or as a
> change in behavior/feature.

I think we don't need to worry on that - QEMU will prohibit ballooning
during postcopy starting from the first day.  Feel free to see QEMU
commit 371ff5a3f04cd7 ("Inhibit ballooning during postcopy").

> 
> [...]
> 
> >>
> >> 2. What will happen if I don't place a page on a pagefault, but only do a UFFDIO_WAKE?
> >>    For now we were able to trigger a signal this way.
> > 
> > If I'm not mistaken the UFFDIO_WAKE will directly trigger the sigbus
> > even without the help of the MADV_DONTNEED race.
> 
> Yes, that's the current way of injecting a SIGBUS instead of resolving
> the pagefault. And AFAIKs, you're changing that behavior. (I am not
> aware of a user, there could be use cases, but somehow it's strange to
> get a signal when accessing memory that is mapped READ|WRITE and also
> represented like this in e.g., /proc/$PID/maps). So IMHO, only the new
> behavior makes really sense.

I agree, I'm not sure how other people think on ABI stability, but...
for my own preference I don't worry much on ABI breakage for a problem
like this.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu