linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:10:46 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:17:36AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:

> > But it's admittedly a cosmetic point, combined with my perennial fear that
> > I'm missing something when I look at a READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() pair. :)
> 
> Yeah but I hope I'm using it right.. :) I used READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE explicitly
> because I think they're cheaper than atomic operations, (which will, iiuc, lock
> the bus).

It is worth thinking a bit about racing fork with
pin_user_pages(). The desired outcome is:

  If fork wins the page is write protected, and pin_user_pages_fast()
  will COW it.

  If pin_user_pages_fast() wins then fork must see the READ_ONCE and
  the pin.

As get_user_pages_fast() is lockless it looks like the ordering has to
be like this:

  pin_user_pages_fast()                   fork()
   atomic_set(has_pinned, 1);
   [..]
   atomic_add(page->_refcount)
   ordered check write protect()
                                          ordered set write protect()
                                          atomic_read(page->_refcount)
                                          atomic_read(has_pinned)

Such that in all the degenerate racy cases the outcome is that both
sides COW, never neither.

Thus I think it does have to be atomics purely from an ordering
perspective, observing an increased _refcount requires that has_pinned
!= 0 if we are pinning.

So, to make this 100% this ordering will need to be touched up too.

Jason