linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/gup: Allow real explicit breaking of COW

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200821101333.GA3432@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:13:33 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/gup: Allow real explicit breaking of COW

On Thu 20-08-20 15:01:00, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:54 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I kind of prefer the new suggestion to remove code rather than adding new
> > codes.  I definitely don't know enough on the side effect of it, especially
> > performance-wise on either ksm or swap, but... IIUC the worst case is we'll get
> > some perf report later on, and it seems also not hard to revert the patch later
> > if we want.
> 
> Well, would you be willing to try this patch out?
> 
> After you apply that patch, you should be able to remove the
> should_force_cow_break() games entirely, because a write to the page
> should always break cow towards the writer if there are any GUP users
> around (put another way: away from the GUP).
> 
> However, to make the test meaningful, it really should do some swap testing too.
> 
>             Linus

> From f41082844ea82ad1278e167fe6e973fa4efc974a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:23:04 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Trial do_wp_page() simplification
> 
> How about we just make sure we're the only possible valid user fo the
> page before we bother to reuse it?
> 
> Simplify, simplify, simplify.
> 
> And get rid of the nasty serialization on the page lock at the same time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 58 +++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 602f4283122f..a43004dd2ff6 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2927,50 +2927,24 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  	 * not dirty accountable.
>  	 */
>  	if (PageAnon(vmf->page)) {
> -		int total_map_swapcount;
> -		if (PageKsm(vmf->page) && (PageSwapCache(vmf->page) ||
> -					   page_count(vmf->page) != 1))
> +		struct page *page = vmf->page;
> +
> +		if (page_count(page) != 1)
> +			goto copy;
> +		if (!trylock_page(page))
> +			goto copy;
> +		if (page_mapcount(page) != 1 && page_count(page) != 1) {

So this condition looks strange to me... Did you mean:

		if (page_mapcount(page) != 1 || page_count(page) != 1)

? Because page mapcount is >= 1 here, and if mapcount is > 1, then page_count
is certainly greater than 1 as well...

> +			unlock_page(page);
>  			goto copy;
> -		if (!trylock_page(vmf->page)) {
> -			get_page(vmf->page);
> -			pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> -			lock_page(vmf->page);
> -			vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
> -					vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> -			if (!pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte)) {
> -				update_mmu_tlb(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> -				unlock_page(vmf->page);
> -				pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> -				put_page(vmf->page);
> -				return 0;
> -			}
> -			put_page(vmf->page);
> -		}
> -		if (PageKsm(vmf->page)) {

Also I know nothing about KSM but looking at reuse_ksm_page() I can see it
plays some tricks with page index & mapping even for pages with page_count
== 1 so you cannot just drop those bits AFAICT.

> -			bool reused = reuse_ksm_page(vmf->page, vmf->vma,
> -						     vmf->address);
> -			unlock_page(vmf->page);
> -			if (!reused)
> -				goto copy;
> -			wp_page_reuse(vmf);
> -			return VM_FAULT_WRITE;
> -		}
> -		if (reuse_swap_page(vmf->page, &total_map_swapcount)) {

Also I'm not sure if dropping this is safe for THP - reuse_swap_page()
seems to be a misnomer and seems to do also some THP handling. In
particular a comment before page_trans_huge_mapcount() states that
page_mapcount() isn't fully accurate for THP and page_trans_huge_mapcount()
should be used instead for checking whether a copy is needed on write fault.

									Honza
> -			if (total_map_swapcount == 1) {
> -				/*
> -				 * The page is all ours. Move it to
> -				 * our anon_vma so the rmap code will
> -				 * not search our parent or siblings.
> -				 * Protected against the rmap code by
> -				 * the page lock.
> -				 */
> -				page_move_anon_rmap(vmf->page, vma);
> -			}
> -			unlock_page(vmf->page);
> -			wp_page_reuse(vmf);
> -			return VM_FAULT_WRITE;
>  		}
> -		unlock_page(vmf->page);
> +		/*
> +		 * Ok, we've got the only map reference, and the only
> +		 * page count reference, and the page is locked,
> +		 * it's dark out, and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.
> +		 */
> +		wp_page_reuse(vmf);
> +		unlock_page(page);
> +		return VM_FAULT_WRITE;
>  	} else if (unlikely((vma->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) ==
>  					(VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED))) {
>  		return wp_page_shared(vmf);
> -- 
> 2.28.0.218.gc12ef3d349
> 

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR