linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: Validate if the pmd entry is present before accessing

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:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:07:13 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Cc:     sj@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        damon@...ts.linux.dev, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: Validate if the pmd entry is present before
 accessing



On 8/18/2022 11:39 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 10:57, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 8/18/2022 10:41 AM, Muchun Song 写道:
>>>> On Aug 17, 2022, at 14:21, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The pmd_huge() is used to validate if the pmd entry is mapped by a huge
>>>> page, also including the case of non-present (migration or hwpoisoned)
>>>> pmd entry on arm64 or x86 architectures. Thus we should validate if it
>>>> is present before making the pmd entry old or getting young state,
>>>> otherwise we can not get the correct corresponding page.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/damon/vaddr.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/damon/vaddr.c b/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>> index 3c7b9d6..1d16c6c 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>> @@ -304,6 +304,11 @@ static int damon_mkold_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
>>>>
>>>> 	if (pmd_huge(*pmd)) {
>>>> 		ptl = pmd_lock(walk->mm, pmd);
>>>> +		if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) {
>>> Unluckily, we should use pte_present here. See commit c9d398fa23788. We can use
>>> huge_ptep_get() to get a hugetlb pte, so it’s better to put the check after
>>> pmd_huge.
>>
>> IMO this is not the case for hugetlb, and the hugetlb case will be handled by damon_mkold_hugetlb_entry(), which already used pte_present() for hugetlb case.
> 
> Well, I thought it is hugetlb related since I saw the usage of pmd_huge. If it is THP case, why
> not use pmd_trans_huge?

IIUC, it can not guarantee the pmd is present if pmd_trans_huge() 
returns true on all architectures, at least on X86, we still need 
pmd_present() validation. So changing to pmd_trans_huge() does not make 
code simpler from my side, and I prefer to keep this patch.

Maybe we can send another cleanup patch to replace pmd_huge() with 
pmd_trans_huge() for THP case to make code more readable? How do you 
think? Thanks.

>>
>>> Cc Mike to make sure I am not missing something.
>>> Muchun,
>>> Thanks.
>>>> +			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> +			return 0;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> 		if (pmd_huge(*pmd)) {
>>>> 			damon_pmdp_mkold(pmd, walk->mm, addr);
>>>> 			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> @@ -431,6 +436,11 @@ static int damon_young_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>> 	if (pmd_huge(*pmd)) {
>>>> 		ptl = pmd_lock(walk->mm, pmd);
>>>> +		if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) {
>>>> +			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> +			return 0;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> 		if (!pmd_huge(*pmd)) {
>>>> 			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> 			goto regular_page;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.8.3.1