linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via FAULT_FLAG

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:   Sun, 19 Dec 2021 21:47:55 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via
 FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE (!hugetlb)

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 01:27:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:12 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can we get rid of ->mapcount altogether?  Three states:
> >  - Not mapped
> >  - Mapped exactly once
> >  - Possibly mapped more than once
> 
> I don't think even that is useful. We should get rid of mapcount entirely.
> 
> It doesn't actually help to know "mapped exactly once", exactly
> because even when that's true, there may be non-mapped references to
> the page.
> 
> Mapped references really aren't that special in general.
> 
> One case where it *can* be special is on virtually indexed cache
> architectures, where "is this mapped anywhere else" can be an issue
> for cache flushing.
> 
> There the page_mapcount() can actually really matter, but it's such an
> odd case that I'm not convinced it should be something the kernel VM
> code should bend over backwards for.
> 
> And the count could be useful for 'rmap' operations, where you can
> stop walking the rmap once you've found all mapped cases (paghe
> migration being one case of this). But again, I'm not convinced the
> serialization is worth it, or that it's a noticeable win.
> 
> However, I'm not 100% convinced it's worth it even there, and I'm not
> sure we necessarily use it there.
> 
> So in general, I think page_mapcount() can be useful as a count for
> those things that are _literally_ about "where is this page mapped".
> Page migration, virtual cache coherency, things like that can
> literally be about "how many different virtual mappings can we find".
> 
> It's just that pages can have a number of non-mapped users too, so
> mapcount isn't all that meaningful in general.
> 
> And you can look it up with rmap too, and so I do think it would be
> worth discussing whether we really should strive to maintain
> 'mapcount' at all.

Yes, agreed, I was thinking that we could use "not mapped at all"
as an optimisation to avoid doing rmap walks.  eg __unmap_and_move().

Perhaps more interestingly in truncate_cleanup_page():
        if (page_mapped(page))
                unmap_mapping_page(page);
where we can skip the i_mmap rbtree walk if we know the page isn't
mapped.  I'd be willing to give up that optimisation if we had "this
page was never mapped" (ie if page_mapped() was allowed to return
false positives).