[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ddf1310-b49f-6e66-a22a-6de361602558@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:17:43 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Ives van Hoorne <ives@...esandbox.io>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm/migrate: Fix read-only page got writable when
recover pte
On 14.11.22 01:04, Peter Xu wrote:
> Ives van Hoorne from codesandbox.io reported an issue regarding possible
> data loss of uffd-wp when applied to memfds on heavily loaded systems. The
> symptom is some read page got data mismatch from the snapshot child VMs.
>
> Here I can also reproduce with a Rust reproducer that was provided by Ives
> that keeps taking snapshot of a 256MB VM, on a 32G system when I initiate
> 80 instances I can trigger the issues in ten minutes.
>
> It turns out that we got some pages write-through even if uffd-wp is
> applied to the pte.
>
> The problem is, when removing migration entries, we didn't really worry
> about write bit as long as we know it's not a write migration entry. That
> may not be true, for some memory types (e.g. writable shmem) mk_pte can
> return a pte with write bit set, then to recover the migration entry to its
> original state we need to explicit wr-protect the pte or it'll has the
> write bit set if it's a read migration entry. For uffd it can cause
> write-through.
>
> The relevant code on uffd was introduced in the anon support, which is
> commit f45ec5ff16a7 ("userfaultfd: wp: support swap and page migration",
> 2020-04-07). However anon shouldn't suffer from this problem because anon
> should already have the write bit cleared always, so that may not be a
> proper Fixes target, while I'm adding the Fixes to be uffd shmem support.
>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: b1f9e876862d ("mm/uffd: enable write protection for shmem & hugetlbfs")
> Reported-by: Ives van Hoorne <ives@...esandbox.io>
> Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
> Tested-by: Ives van Hoorne <ives@...esandbox.io>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/migrate.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index dff333593a8a..8b6351c08c78 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -213,8 +213,14 @@ static bool remove_migration_pte(struct folio *folio,
> pte = pte_mkdirty(pte);
> if (is_writable_migration_entry(entry))
> pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte, vma);
> - else if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pvmw.pte))
> + else
> + /* NOTE: mk_pte can have write bit set */
> + pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
> +
> + if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pvmw.pte)) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(pte_write(pte));
> pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
> + }
>
> if (folio_test_anon(folio) && !is_readable_migration_entry(entry))
> rmap_flags |= RMAP_EXCLUSIVE;
As raised, I don't agree to this generic non-uffd-wp change without
further, clear justification.
I won't nack it, but I won't ack it either.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists