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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200615213431.GC111927@xz-x1>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 17:34:31 -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 12:50:23PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> 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.

To make sure this won't fall through the cracks... I'll give it a shot with a
single series to address this issue for all archs.  Although it might not be
easy to do accounting directly in handle_mm_fault(), it might be still a chance
to introduce a helper so the accounting can be done in general code.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu