linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access

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:   Wed, 19 May 2021 21:04:53 +1000
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <jhubbard@...dia.com>, <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        <jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        <willy@...radead.org>, <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access

On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 9:45:05 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:03:27PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Logically during fork all these device exclusive pages should be
> > reverted back to their CPU pages, write protected and the CPU page PTE
> > copied to the fork.
> > 
> > We should not copy the device exclusive page PTE to the fork. I think
> > I pointed to this on an earlier rev..
> 
> Agreed.  Though please see the question I posted in the other thread: now I
> am not very sure whether we'll be able to mark a page as device exclusive
> if that page has mapcount>1.
>
> > We can optimize this into the various variants above, but logically
> > device exclusive stop existing during fork.
> 
> Makes sense, I think that's indeed what this patch did at least for the COW
> case, so I think Alistair did address that comment.  It's just that I think
> we need to drop the other !COW case (imho that should correspond to the
> changes in copy_nonpresent_pte()) in this patch to guarantee it.

Right. The main change from v7 -> v8 was to remove device exclusive entries on 
fork instead of copying them. The change in copy_nonpresent_pte() is for the
!COW case. I think what you are getting at is given exclusive entries are 
(currently) only supported for PageAnon pages is_cow_mapping() will always be 
true and therefore the change to copy_nonpresent_pte() can be dropped. That 
logic seems reasonable so I will change the exclusive case in 
copy_nonpresent_pte() to a VM_WARN_ON.

> I also hope we don't make copy_pte_range() even more complicated just to do
> the lock_page() right, so we could fail the fork() if the lock is hard to
> take.

Failing fork() because we couldn't take a lock doesn't seem like the right 
approach though, especially as there is already existing code that retries. I 
get this adds complexity though, so would be happy to take a look at cleaning 
copy_pte_range() up in future.

> --
> Peter Xu