linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/47] LoongArch: Set _PAGE_DIRTY only if _PAGE_WRITE is set in {pmd,pte}

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: <Y3aDQKwGDLXtWRJu@x1n>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:52 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, r@....cc
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/47] LoongArch: Set _PAGE_DIRTY only if _PAGE_WRITE is
 set in {pmd,pte}_mkdirty()

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:12:07AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> Hi, Huacai,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:25:32PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > Now {pmd,pte}_mkdirty() set _PAGE_DIRTY bit unconditionally, this causes
> > random segmentation fault after commit 0ccf7f168e17bb7e ("mm/thp: carry
> > over dirty bit when thp splits on pmd").
> > 
> > The reason is: when fork(), parent process use pmd_wrprotect() to clear
> > huge page's _PAGE_WRITE and _PAGE_DIRTY (for COW);
> 
> Is it safe to drop dirty bit when wr-protect?  It means the mm can reclaim
> the page directly assuming the page contains rubbish.
> 
> Consider after fork() and memory pressure kicks the kswapd, I don't see
> anything stops the kswapd from recycling the pages and lose the data in
> both processes.

Feel free to ignore this question..  I think I got an answer from Hev (and
I then got a follow up question):

https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y3Z9Zf0jARMOkFBq@x1n/

> 
> > then pte_mkdirty() set
> > _PAGE_DIRTY as well as _PAGE_MODIFIED while splitting dirty huge pages;
> > once _PAGE_DIRTY is set, there will be no tlb modify exception so the COW
> > machanism fails; and at last memory corruption occurred between parent
> > and child processes.
> > 
> > So, we should set _PAGE_DIRTY only when _PAGE_WRITE is set in {pmd,pte}_
> > mkdirty().
> > 
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
> > ---
> > Note: CC sparc maillist because they have similar issues.
> 
> I also had a look on sparc64, it seems to not do the same as loongarch
> here (not removing dirty in wr-protect):
> 
> static inline pmd_t pmd_wrprotect(pmd_t pmd)
> {
> 	pte_t pte = __pte(pmd_val(pmd));
> 
> 	pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
> 
> 	return __pmd(pte_val(pte));
> }
> 
> static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
> {
> 	unsigned long val = pte_val(pte), tmp;
> 
> 	__asm__ __volatile__(
> 	"\n661:	andn		%0, %3, %0\n"
> 	"	nop\n"
> 	"\n662:	nop\n"
> 	"	nop\n"
> 	"	.section	.sun4v_2insn_patch, \"ax\"\n"
> 	"	.word		661b\n"
> 	"	sethi		%%uhi(%4), %1\n"
> 	"	sllx		%1, 32, %1\n"
> 	"	.word		662b\n"
> 	"	or		%1, %%lo(%4), %1\n"
> 	"	andn		%0, %1, %0\n"
> 	"	.previous\n"
> 	: "=r" (val), "=r" (tmp)
> 	: "0" (val), "i" (_PAGE_WRITE_4U | _PAGE_W_4U),
> 	  "i" (_PAGE_WRITE_4V | _PAGE_W_4V));
> 
> 	return __pte(val);
> }

(Same here; I just overlooked what does _PAGE_W_4U meant..)

> 
> >  
> >  arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > index 946704bee599..debbe116f105 100644
> > --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > @@ -349,7 +349,9 @@ static inline pte_t pte_mkclean(pte_t pte)
> >  
> >  static inline pte_t pte_mkdirty(pte_t pte)
> >  {
> > -	pte_val(pte) |= (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED);
> > +	pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> > +	if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_WRITE)
> > +		pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_DIRTY;
> 
> I'm not sure whether mm has rule to always set write bit then set dirty
> bit, need to be careful here because the outcome may differ when use:
> 
>   pte_mkdirty(pte_mkwrite(pte))
>   (expected)
> 
> VS:
> 
>   pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte))
>   (dirty not set)
> 
> I had a feeling I miss some arch-specific details here on why loongarch
> needs such implementation, but I can't quickly tell.

After a closer look I think it's fine for loongarch as pte_mkwrite will
also set the dirty bit unconditionally, so at least the two ways will still
generate the same pte (DIRTY+MODIFIED+WRITE).

But this whole thing is still confusing to me.  It'll still be great if
anyone can help explain why the _DIRTY cannot be set only in pte_mkwrite()
if that's the solo place in charge of "whether the pte is writable".

The other follow up question is: how do we mark "this pte contains valid
data" (the common definition of "dirty bit"), while "this pte is not
writable" on loongarch?

It can happen when we're installing a page with non-zero data meanwhile
wr-protected.  That's actually a valid case for userfaultfd wr-protect mode
where user specified UFFDIO_COPY ioctl with flag UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP, where
we'll install a non-zero page from user buffer but don't grant write bit.

>From code-wise, I think it can be done currently with this on loongarch:

  pte_wrprotect(pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte)))

Where pte_wrprotect(pte_mkwrite(pte)) is not a no-op but applying MODIFIED.

While on many other archs it'll be as simple as:

  pte_mkdirty(pte)

But that's really error-prone and not obvious.

Copying Hev too.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu