linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Forbid huge pmd sharing when uffd enabled

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:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:27:49 -0800
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Chinwen Chang <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Shawn Anastasio <shawn@...stas.io>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Adam Ruprecht <ruprecht@...gle.com>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@...gle.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Forbid huge pmd sharing
 when uffd enabled

On 2/12/21 12:47 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:40 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:19:55PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> want_pmd_share() is currently just a check for CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE.
>>> How about leaving that mostly as is, and adding the new vma checks to
>>> vma_shareable().  vma_shareable() would then be something like:
>>>
>>>       if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE))
>>>               return false;
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD
>>>       if (uffd_disable_huge_pmd_share(vma)
>>>               return false;
>>> #endif
>>> #ifdef /* XXX */
>>>       /* add other checks for things like uffd wp and soft dirty here */
>>> #endif /* XXX */
>>>
>>>       if (range_in_vma(vma, base, end)
>>>               return true;
>>>       return false;
>>>
>>> Of course, this would require we leave the call to vma_shareable() at the
>>> beginning of huge_pmd_share.  It also means that we are always making a
>>> function call into huge_pmd_share to determine if sharing is possible.
>>> That is not any different than today.  If we do not want to make that extra
>>> function call, then I would suggest putting all that code in want_pmd_share.
>>> It just seems that all the vma checks for sharing should be in one place
>>> if possible.
>>
>> I don't worry a lot on that since we've already got huge_pte_alloc() which
>> takes care of huge pmd sharing case, so I don't expect e.g. even most hugetlb
>> developers to use want_pmd_share() at all, because huge_pte_alloc() will be the
>> one that frequently got called.
>>
>> But yeah we can definitely put the check logic into huge_pmd_share() too.
>> Looking at above code it looks still worth a helper like want_pmd_share() or
>> with some other name.  Then... instead of making this complicated, how about I
>> mostly keep this patch but move want_pmd_share() call into huge_pmd_share()
>> instead?

When looking at this again, all I was suggesting was a single routine to
check for the possibility of pmd sharing.  That is what the version of
want_pmd_share in this patch does.

I have some patches for future optimizations that only take i_mmap_rwsem
in the fault path if sharing is possible.  This is before huge_pte_alloc.
want_pmd_share as defined in this patch would work for that.

Sorry for the noise.
-- 
Mike Kravetz