linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/hmm-tests: Add test for dirty bits

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: <2aa2013a-735d-a96a-2f35-0a44a06d85f0@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 07:05:01 +0300
From:   Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)" <alex.sierra@....com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>, linuxram@...ibm.com,
        paulus@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/hmm-tests: Add test for dirty bits



On 15.8.2022 6.21, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 
> Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 15.8.2022 5.35, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alistair!
>>>>
>>>> On 12.8.2022 8.22, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> +	buffer->ptr = mmap(NULL, size,
>>>>> +			   PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>>>>> +			   MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS,
>>>>> +			   buffer->fd, 0);
>>>>> +	ASSERT_NE(buffer->ptr, MAP_FAILED);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Initialize buffer in system memory. */
>>>>> +	for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>>>> +		ptr[i] = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ASSERT_FALSE(write_cgroup_param(cgroup, "memory.reclaim", 1UL<<30));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Fault pages back in from swap as clean pages */
>>>>> +	for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>>>> +		tmp += ptr[i];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Dirty the pte */
>>>>> +	for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>>>> +		ptr[i] = i;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> The anon pages are quite likely in memory at this point, and dirty in pte.
>>> Why would the pte be dirty? I just confirmed using some modified pagemap
>>> code that on my system at least this isn't the case.
>>>
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * Attempt to migrate memory to device, which should fail because
>>>>> +	 * hopefully some pages are backed by swap storage.
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	ASSERT_TRUE(hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev(self->fd, buffer, npages));
>>>>
>>>> And pages marked dirty also now. But could you elaborate how and where the above
>>>> fails in more detail, couldn't immediately see it...
>>> Not if you don't have patch 1 of this series applied. If the
>>> trylock_page() in migrate_vma_collect_pmd() succeeds (which it almost
>>> always does) it will have cleared the pte without setting PageDirty.
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes but I meant with the patch 1 applied, the comment "Attempt to migrate
>> memory to device, which should fail because hopefully some pages are backed by
>> swap storage" indicates that hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev() would fail..and there's
>> that ASSERT_TRUE which means fail here.
>>
>> So I understand the data loss but where is the hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev() failing,
>> with or wihtout patch 1 applied?
> 
> Oh right. hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev() will fail because the page is in the
> swap cache, and migrate_vma_*() doesn't currently support migrating
> pages with a mapping.
> 

Ok I forgot we skip also page cache pages, not just file pages...




>>> So now we have a dirty page without PageDirty set and without a dirty
>>> pte. If this page gets swapped back to disk and is still in the swap
>>> cache data will be lost because reclaim will see a clean page and won't
>>> write it out again.
>>> At least that's my understanding - please let me know if you see
>>> something that doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ASSERT_FALSE(write_cgroup_param(cgroup, "memory.reclaim", 1UL<<30));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Check we still see the updated data after restoring from swap. */
>>>>> +	for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>>>> +		ASSERT_EQ(ptr[i], i);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	hmm_buffer_free(buffer);
>>>>> +	destroy_cgroup();
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>     /*
>>>>>      * Read anonymous memory multiple times.
>>>>>      */
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Mika
>>>
>