linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mmotm v2] tmpfs: do not allocate pages on read

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: <20220308172734.GC1479066@magnolia>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:27:34 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@...hat.com>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm v2] tmpfs: do not allocate pages on read

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 02:59:05PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Mikulas asked in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/alpine.LRH.2.02.2007210510230.6959@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com/
> > Do we still need a0ee5ec520ed ("tmpfs: allocate on read when stacked")?
> > 
> > Lukas noticed this unusual behavior of loop device backed by tmpfs in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20211126075100.gd64odg2bcptiqeb@work/
> > 
> > Normally, shmem_file_read_iter() copies the ZERO_PAGE when reading holes;
> > but if it looks like it might be a read for "a stacking filesystem", it
> > allocates actual pages to the page cache, and even marks them as dirty.
> > And reads from the loop device do satisfy the test that is used.
> > 
> > This oddity was added for an old version of unionfs, to help to limit
> > its usage to the limited size of the tmpfs mount involved; but about
> > the same time as the tmpfs mod went in (2.6.25), unionfs was reworked
> > to proceed differently; and the mod kept just in case others needed it.
> > 
> > Do we still need it? I cannot answer with more certainty than "Probably
> > not". It's nasty enough that we really should try to delete it; but if
> > a regression is reported somewhere, then we might have to revert later.
> > 
> > It's not quite as simple as just removing the test (as Mikulas did):
> > xfstests generic/013 hung because splice from tmpfs failed on page not
> > up-to-date and page mapping unset.  That can be fixed just by marking
> > the ZERO_PAGE as Uptodate, which of course it is: do so in
> > pagecache_init() - it might be useful to others than tmpfs.
> > 
> > My intention, though, was to stop using the ZERO_PAGE here altogether:
> > surely iov_iter_zero() is better for this case?  Sadly not: it relies
> > on clear_user(), and the x86 clear_user() is slower than its copy_user():
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2f5ca5e4-e250-a41c-11fb-a7f4ebc7e1c9@google.com/
> > 
> > But while we are still using the ZERO_PAGE, let's stop dirtying its
> > struct page cacheline with unnecessary get_page() and put_page().
> > 
> > Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> 
> I would have split the uptodate setting of ZERO_PAGE into a separate,
> clearly documented patch, but otherwise this looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

I've long wondered (for my own nefarious purposes) why tmpfs files
didn't just grab the zero page, so:

Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>

--D