linux-kernel - Re: Possible duplicate page fault accounting on some archs after commit 4064b9827063

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: <20200610165023.GA67179@xz-x1>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:50:23 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
        Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Guan Xuetao <gxt@....edu.cn>, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Possible duplicate page fault accounting on some archs after
 commit 4064b9827063

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:48:11PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> Hi,

Hi, Gerald,

> 
> Some architectures have their page fault accounting code inside the fault
> retry loop, and rely on only going through that code once. Before commit
> 4064b9827063 ("mm: allow VM_FAULT_RETRY for multiple times"), that was
> ensured by testing for and clearing FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY.
> 
> That commit had to remove the clearing of FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY for all
> architectures, and introduced a subtle change to page fault accounting
> logic in the affected archs. It is now possible to go through the retry
> loop multiple times, and the affected archs would then account multiple
> page faults instead of just one.
> 
> This was found by coincidence in s390 code, and a quick check showed that
> there are quite a lot of other architectures that seem to be affected in a
> similar way. I'm preparing a fix for s390, by moving the accounting behind
> the retry loop, similar to x86. It is not completely straight-forward, so
> I leave the fix for other archs to the respective maintainers.

Sorry for not noticing this before.  The accounting part should definitely be
put at least into a check against fault_flag_allow_retry_first() to mimic what
was done before.  And I agree it would be even better to put it after the retry
logic, so if any of the page faults gets a major fault, it'll be accounted as a
major fault which makes more sense to me, just like what x86 is doing now with:

	major |= fault & VM_FAULT_MAJOR;

I'm not sure what's the preference of the arch maintainers, just let me know if
it's preferred to use a single series to address this issue for all affected
archs (or the archs besides s390), then I'll do.

Thanks!

-- 
Peter Xu