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:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 16:44:40 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.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>, 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 Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 05:08:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 22-12-21 15:48:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.12.21 15:42, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 22-12-21 14:09:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >>>> IIUC, our COW logic makes sure that a shared anonymous page that might
> > >>>> still be used by a R/O FOLL_GET cannot be modified, because any attempt
> > >>>> to modify it would result in a copy.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, we defined FOLL_PIN to mean the intent that the caller wants to access
> > >>> not only page state (for which is enough FOLL_GET and there are some users
> > >>> - mostly inside mm - who need this) but also page data. Eventually, we even
> > >>> wanted to make FOLL_GET unavailable to broad areas of kernel (and keep it
> > >>> internal to only MM for its dirty deeds ;)) to reduce the misuse of GUP.
> > >>>
> > >>> For file pages we need this data vs no-data access distinction so that
> > >>> filesystems can detect when someone can be accessing page data although the
> > >>> page is unmapped.  Practically, filesystems care most about when someone
> > >>> can be *modifying* page data (we need to make sure data is stable e.g. when
> > >>> writing back data to disk or doing data checksumming or other operations)
> > >>> so using FOLL_GET when wanting to only read page data should be OK for
> > >>> filesystems but honestly I would be reluctant to break the rule of "use
> > >>> FOLL_PIN when wanting to access page data" to keep things simple and
> > >>> reasonably easy to understand for parties such as filesystem developers or
> > >>> driver developers who all need to interact with pinned pages...
> > >>
> > >> Right, from an API perspective we really want people to use FOLL_PIN.
> > >>
> > >> To optimize this case in particular it would help if we would have the
> > >> FOLL flags on the unpin path. Then we could just decide internally
> > >> "well, short-term R/O FOLL_PIN can be really lightweight, we can treat
> > >> this like a FOLL_GET instead". And we would need that as well if we were
> > >> to keep different counters for R/O vs. R/W pinned.
> > > 
> > > Well, I guess the question here is: Which GUP user needs only R/O access to
> > > page data and is so performance critical that it would be worth it to
> > > sacrifice API clarity for speed? I'm not aware of any but I was not looking
> > > really hard...
> > 
> > I'd be interested in examples as well. Maybe databases that use O_DIRECT
> > after fork()?
> 
> Well, but O_DIRECT reads must use FOLL_PIN in any case because they modify
> page data (and so we need to detect them both for COW and filesystem needs).
> O_DIRECT writes could use FOLL_GET but at this point I'm not convinced it
> is worth it.

Wow, I didn't realise the plan was to make FOLL_PIN the "default".
I hoped it was weird crap that was going away soon.  Looks like we'd
better fix all the bugs in it then ...