linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 18/33] mm: write-lock VMAs before removing them from VMA tree

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: <CAJuCfpEhwye9dn3eUaYE1gSHt+8M5ztBR3ZMoTYyBR7+uSL5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 18:21:53 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, chriscli@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
        gurua@...gle.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com,
        michalechner92@...glemail.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/33] mm: write-lock VMAs before removing them from
 VMA tree

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:54 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:42:48AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:34 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:57 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:43:33AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:36:17AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > Write-locking VMAs before isolating them ensures that page fault
> > > > > > handlers don't operate on isolated VMAs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  mm/mmap.c  | 1 +
> > > > > >  mm/nommu.c | 5 +++++
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > > > index 1f42b9a52b9b..f7ed357056c4 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > > > @@ -2255,6 +2255,7 @@ int split_vma(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > > >  static inline int munmap_sidetree(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > > >                                struct ma_state *mas_detach)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > +   vma_start_write(vma);
> > > > > >     mas_set_range(mas_detach, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end - 1);
> > > > >
> > > > > I may be missing something, but have few questions:
> > > > >
> > > > >       1) Why does a writer need to both write-lock a VMA and mark the VMA detached
> > > > >          when unmapping it, isn't it enough to just only write-lock a VMA?
> > >
> > > We need to mark the VMA detached to avoid handling page fault in a
> > > detached VMA. The possible scenario is:
> > >
> > > lock_vma_under_rcu
> > >   vma = mas_walk(&mas)
> > >                                                         munmap_sidetree
> > >                                                           vma_start_write(vma)
> > >
> > > mas_store_gfp() // remove VMA from the tree
> > >                                                           vma_end_write_all()
> > >   vma_start_read(vma)
> > >   // we locked the VMA but it is not part of the tree anymore.
> > >
> > > So, marking the VMA locked before vma_end_write_all() and checking
> >
> > Sorry, I should have said "marking the VMA *detached* before
> > vma_end_write_all() and checking vma->detached after vma_start_read()
> > helps us avoid handling faults in the detached VMA."
> >
> > > vma->detached after vma_start_read() helps us avoid handling faults in
> > > the detached VMA.
>
> Thank you for explanation, that makes sense!
>
> By the way, if there are no 32bit users of Per-VMA lock (are there?),
> "detached" bool could be a VMA flag (i.e. making it depend on 64BIT
> and selecting ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS)

Yeah, I thought about it but didn't want to make assumptions about
potential users just yet. Besides, I heard there are attempts to make
vm_flags to be always 64-bit (I think Matthew mentioned that to me
once). If that happens, we won't need any dependencies here. Either
way, this conversion into a flag can be done as an additional
optimization later on. I prefer to keep the main patchset as simple as
possible for now.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
> Thanks,
> Hyeonggon
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@...roid.com.
>