linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 7/8] hugetlb: create hugetlb_unmap_file

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: <9a4729f6-ca4d-0137-8d15-bbb1221bce52@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 30 Jul 2022 10:15:17 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@...ersystems.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 7/8] hugetlb: create hugetlb_unmap_file_folio to
 unmap single file folio

On 2022/7/30 2:11, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/29/22 10:02, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/7 4:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> Create the new routine hugetlb_unmap_file_folio that will unmap a single
>>> file folio.  This is refactored code from hugetlb_vmdelete_list.  It is
>>> modified to do locking within the routine itself and check whether the
>>> page is mapped within a specific vma before unmapping.
>>>
>>> This refactoring will be put to use and expanded upon in a subsequent
>>> patch adding vma specific locking.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> index 31bd4325fce5..0eac0ea2a245 100644
>>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>> @@ -396,6 +396,94 @@ static int hugetlbfs_write_end(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
>>>  	return -EINVAL;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + * Called with i_mmap_rwsem held for inode based vma maps.  This makes
>>> + * sure vma (and vm_mm) will not go away.  We also hold the hugetlb fault
>>> + * mutex for the page in the mapping.  So, we can not race with page being
>>> + * faulted into the vma.
>>> + */
>>> +static bool hugetlb_vma_maps_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> +				unsigned long addr, struct page *page)
>>> +{
>>> +	pte_t *ptep, pte;
>>> +
>>> +	ptep = huge_pte_offset(vma->vm_mm, addr,
>>> +			huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma)));
>>> +
>>> +	if (!ptep)
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
>>> +	if (huge_pte_none(pte) || !pte_present(pte))
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	if (pte_page(pte) == page)
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>> +	return false;	/* WTH??? */
>>
>> I'm sorry but what does WTH means? IIUC, this could happen if pte_page is a COW-ed private page?
>> vma_interval_tree_foreach doesn't exclude the private mapping even after cow?
> 
> My apologies, I left that comment in during development and should have removed
> it.  WTH is an acronym for 'What the Heck?".  I added it because I did not
> think we should ever get to this return statement.
> 

That's all right. Thanks for your hard work.

> I am not sure if your COW of a private page would get us to this return
> statement.  In any case, if we get there we need to return false.
> 
> Thank you for your analysis and comments!
>