linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV

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: <YRp4+EmohNoxzv2x@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:40:56 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <longpeng2@...wei.com>, Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 04:33:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > I did not follow why we have to play games with MAP_PRIVATE, and having
> > > private anonymous pages shared between processes that don't COW, introducing
> > > new syscalls etc.
> > 
> > It's not about SHMEM, it's about file-backed pages on regular
> > filesystems.  I don't want to have XFS, ext4 and btrfs all with their
> > own implementations of ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE.
> 
> Let me ask this way: why do we have to play such games with MAP_PRIVATE?

Are you referring to this?

: Mappings within this address range behave as if they were shared
: between threads, so a write to a MAP_PRIVATE mapping will create a
: page which is shared between all the sharers.

If so, that's a misunderstanding, because there are no games being played.
What Khalid's saying there is that because the page tables are already
shared for that range of address space, the COW of a MAP_PRIVATE will
create a new page, but that page will be shared between all the sharers.
The second write to a MAP_PRIVATE page (by any of the sharers) will not
create a COW situation.  Just like if all the sharers were threads of
the same process.