linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp

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: <e6c352f8-7ee9-0702-10a4-122d2c4422fc@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:50:46 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        "Yang Shi" <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        "Kirill Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification

On 9/15/20 4:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:33:30PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> 
>>> RDMA doesn't ever use !WRITE
>>>
>>> I'm guessing #5 is the issue, just with a different ordering. If the
>>> #3 pin_user_pages() preceeds the #2 fork, don't we get to the same #5?
>>
>> Right, but only if without MADV_DONTFORK?
> 
> Yes, results are that MADV_DONTFORK resolves the issue for initial
> tests. I should know if a bigger test suite passes in a few days.
>   
>>>> If this is a problem, we may still need the fix patch (maybe not as urgent as
>>>> before at least).  But I'd like to double confirm, just in case I miss some
>>>> obvious facts above.
>>>
>>> I'm worred that the sudden need to have MAD_DONTFORK is going to be a
>>> turn into a huge regression. It already blew up our first level of
>>> synthetic test cases. I'm worried what we will see when the
>>> application suite is run in a few months :\
>>
>> For my own preference I'll consider changing kernel behavior if the impact is
>> still under control (the performance report of 30%+ boost is also attractive
>> after the simplify-cow patch).  The other way is to maintain the old reuse
>> logic forever, that'll be another kind of burden.  Seems no easy way on either
>> side...
> 
> It seems very strange that a physical page exclusively owned by a
> process can become copied if pin_user_pages() is active and the
> process did fork() at some point.
> 
> Could the new pin_user_pages() logic help here? eg the
> GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS stuff?
> 
> Could the COW code consider a refcount of GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS + 1 as
> being owned by the current mm and not needing COW? The DMA pin would
> be 'invisible' for COW purposes?


Please do be careful to use the API, rather than the implementation. The
FOLL_PIN refcounting system results in being able to get a "maybe
DMA-pinned", or a "definitely not DMA-pinned", via this API call:

     static inline bool page_maybe_dma_pinned(struct page *page)

...which does *not* always use GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS to provide that
answer.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA