linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/23] mm: Introduce PTE

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: <2190897.LADUpQAO2C@nvdebian>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 13:12:23 +1100
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/23] mm: Introduce PTE_MARKER swap entry

On Friday, 3 December 2021 5:45:37 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:35:38PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > > > +static inline pte_marker pte_marker_get(swp_entry_t entry)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	return swp_offset(entry) & PTE_MARKER_MASK;
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure the PTE_MARKER_MASK adds much, especially as we only have one
> > > > user. I don't see a problem with open-coding these kind of checks (ie.
> > > 
> > > It's more or less a safety belt to make sure anything pte_marker_get() returned
> > > will be pte_marker defined bits only.
> > > 
> > > > swp_offset(entry) & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP) as you kind of end up doing that anyway.
> > > > Alternatively if you want helper functions I think it would be better to define
> > > > them for each marker. Eg: is_pte_marker_uffd_wp().
> > > 
> > > Yes we can have something like is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(), I didn't do that
> > > explicitly because I want us to be clear that pte_marker is a bitmask, so
> > > calling "is_*" will be slightly opaque - strictly speaking it should be
> > > "pte_marker_has_uffd_wp_bit()" if there will be more bits defined, but then the
> > > name of the helper will look a bit odd too.  Hence I just keep the only
> > > interface to fetch the whole marker and use "&" in the call sites to check.
> > 
> > Why does a caller need to care if it's a bitmask or not though? Isn't that an
> > implementation detail that could be left to the "is_*" functions? I must admit
> > I'm still working through the rest of this series though - is it because you
> > end up storing some kind of value in the upper bits of the PTE marker?
> 
> Nop. I'm just afraid the caller could overlook the fact that it's a bitmask,
> then there can be code like:
> 
>   if (is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(*ptep) && drop_uffd_wp)
>       pte_clear(ptep)
> 
> While we should only do:
> 
>   if (is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(*ptep) && drop_uffd_wp)
>       // remove uffd-wp bit in the pte_marker, keep the reset bitmask

I'm not sure how having the helper function prevents or changes this though? In
fact I just noticed this in patch 8:

                             if (uffd_wp_resolve &&
                                    (pte_marker_get(entry) & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP)) {
                                        pte_clear(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte);
                                        pages++;
                                }

And if I'm understanding your point correctly isn't that wrong because if there
were other users of pte markers they would inadvertently get cleared? Unless of
course I've missed something - I haven't looked at patch 8 yet for context. To
help with the above situation I think you would need a helper for clearing
ptes.

> I could be worrying too much, there's no real user of it.  If you prefer the
> helper a lot I can add it in the new version.  Thanks,

It's not a massive issue, but I do think either defining a helper or open
coding the bit check is clearer. I think we can worry about other users if/when
they appear.

 - Alistair