linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] selftests/vm/userfaultfd: wake after copy failure

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: <20201221192846.GH6640@xz-x1>
Date:   Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:28:46 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] selftests/vm/userfaultfd: wake after copy
 failure

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 04:45:38PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
> 
> When userfaultfd copy-ioctl fails since the PTE already exists, an
> -EEXIST error is returned and the faulting thread is not woken. The
> current userfaultfd test does not wake the faulting thread in such case.
> The assumption is presumably that another thread set the PTE through
> copy/wp ioctl and would wake the faulting thread or that alternatively
> the fault handler would realize there is no need to "must_wait" and
> continue. This is not necessarily true.
> 
> There is an assumption that the "must_wait" tests in handle_userfault()
> are sufficient to provide definitive answer whether the offending PTE is
> populated or not. However, userfaultfd_must_wait() test is lockless.
> Consequently, concurrent calls to ptep_modify_prot_start(), for
> instance, can clear the PTE and can cause userfaultfd_must_wait()
> to wrongly assume it is not populated and a wait is needed.

Yes userfaultfd_must_wait() is lockless, however my understanding is that we'll
enqueue before reading the page table, which seems to me that we'll always get
notified even the race happens.  Should apply to either UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT or
UFFDIO_COPY, iiuc, as long as we follow the order of (1) modify pgtable (2)
wake sleeping threads.  Then it also means that when must_wait() returned true,
it should always get waked up when fault resolved.

Taking UFFDIO_COPY as example, even if UFFDIO_COPY happen right before
must_wait() calls:

       worker thread                       uffd thread
       -------------                       -----------

   handle_userfault
    spin_lock(fault_pending_wqh)
    enqueue()
    set_current_state(INTERRUPTIBLE)
    spin_unlock(fault_pending_wqh)
    must_wait()
      lockless walk page table
                                           UFFDIO_COPY
                                             fill in the hole
                                             wake up threads
                                               (this will wake up worker thread too?)
    schedule()
      (which may return immediately?)

While here fault_pending_wqh is lock protected. I just feel like there's some
other reason to cause the thread to stall.  Or did I miss something?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu