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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:50:03 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:36 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So I'll do the pte wrprotect/restore removal. Anybody willing to do
> and test the sequence count approach?

So the wrprotect removal is trivial, with most of it being about the comments.

However, when I look at this, I am - once again - tempted to just add a

        if (__page_mapcount(page) > 1)
                return 1;

there too. Because we know it's a private mapping (shared mappings we
checked for with the "is_cow_mapping()" earlier), and the only case we
really care about is the one where the page is only mapped in the
current mm (because that's what a write pinning will have done, and as
mentioned, a read pinning doesn't do anything wrt fork() right now
anyway).

So if it's mapped in another mm, the COW clearly hasn't been broken by
a pin, and a read pinned page had already gone through a fork.

But the more I look at this code, the more I go "ok, I want somebody
to actually test this with the rdma case".

So I'll attach my suggested patch, but I won't actually commit it. I'd
really like to have this tested, possibly _together_ with the sequence
count addition..

               Linus

Download attachment "patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2530 bytes)