linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm/huge_memory: access vm_page_prot with READ_ONCE in remove_migration

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: <YrYFM+xKu4Q7XJxz@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:40:51 -0700
From:   Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shy828301@...il.com,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm/huge_memory: access vm_page_prot with READ_ONCE
 in remove_migration_pmd

On 23 Jun 20:03, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/6/23 11:14, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:06:13AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >> vma->vm_page_prot is read lockless from the rmap_walk, it may be updated
> >> concurrently. Using READ_ONCE to prevent the risk of reading intermediate
> >> values.
> > 
> > Have you checked all other vm_page_prot reads that they hold mmap_lock?
> 
> I took a glance when I made this patch.
> 
> > 
> > I think the right fix would be to provide a helper to read vm_page_prot
> > which does READ_ONCE() and use it everywhere. This seems more sustainable.
> > 
> 
> This patch is inspired from the below commit
>   6d2329f8872f ("mm: vm_page_prot: update with WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE")
> 
> It changed all the places that need to use READ_ONCE. But remove_migration_pmd
> is missed due to it's introduced later. It looks fine to add a helper to read
> vm_page_prot which does READ_ONCE() but READ_ONCE is unneeded while under the
> mmap_lock, so might it be a little overkill to add a helper because the helper
> is used iff mmap_lock is not held?
> 
> Thanks.

IMO adding the READ_ONCE() as proposed in fine. Adding a helper to be called
dependent on locking context still requires the caller / dev to know what the
locking context is - so I don't think it provides much benefit.