[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc769df3-35e6-4e7a-bc8b-ec46eeca56de@lucifer.local>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 16:17:19 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Nelson Escobar <neescoba@...co.com>,
Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Bjorn Topel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Mika Penttila <mpenttil@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] mm/gup: disallow FOLL_LONGTERM GUP-nonfast
writing to file-backed mappings
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:04:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02.05.23 01:11, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Writing to file-backed mappings which require folio dirty tracking using
> > GUP is a fundamentally broken operation, as kernel write access to GUP
> > mappings do not adhere to the semantics expected by a file system.
> >
> > A GUP caller uses the direct mapping to access the folio, which does not
> > cause write notify to trigger, nor does it enforce that the caller marks
> > the folio dirty.
> >
> > The problem arises when, after an initial write to the folio, writeback
> > results in the folio being cleaned and then the caller, via the GUP
> > interface, writes to the folio again.
> >
> > As a result of the use of this secondary, direct, mapping to the folio no
> > write notify will occur, and if the caller does mark the folio dirty, this
> > will be done so unexpectedly.
> >
> > For example, consider the following scenario:-
> >
> > 1. A folio is written to via GUP which write-faults the memory, notifying
> > the file system and dirtying the folio.
> > 2. Later, writeback is triggered, resulting in the folio being cleaned and
> > the PTE being marked read-only.
> > 3. The GUP caller writes to the folio, as it is mapped read/write via the
> > direct mapping.
> > 4. The GUP caller, now done with the page, unpins it and sets it dirty
> > (though it does not have to).
> >
> > This results in both data being written to a folio without writenotify, and
> > the folio being dirtied unexpectedly (if the caller decides to do so).
> >
> > This issue was first reported by Jan Kara [1] in 2018, where the problem
> > resulted in file system crashes.
> >
> > This is only relevant when the mappings are file-backed and the underlying
> > file system requires folio dirty tracking. File systems which do not, such
> > as shmem or hugetlb, are not at risk and therefore can be written to
> > without issue.
> >
> > Unfortunately this limitation of GUP has been present for some time and
> > requires future rework of the GUP API in order to provide correct write
> > access to such mappings.
> >
> > However, for the time being we introduce this check to prevent the most
> > egregious case of this occurring, use of the FOLL_LONGTERM pin.
> >
> > These mappings are considerably more likely to be written to after
> > folios are cleaned and thus simply must not be permitted to do so.
> >
> > This patch changes only the slow-path GUP functions, a following patch
> > adapts the GUP-fast path along similar lines.
> >
> > [1]:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20180103100430.GE4911@quack2.suse.cz/
> >
> > Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> > Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > ---
> > mm/gup.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index ff689c88a357..0f09dec0906c 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -959,16 +959,51 @@ static int faultin_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +/*
> > + * Writing to file-backed mappings which require folio dirty tracking using GUP
> > + * is a fundamentally broken operation, as kernel write access to GUP mappings
> > + * do not adhere to the semantics expected by a file system.
> > + *
> > + * Consider the following scenario:-
> > + *
> > + * 1. A folio is written to via GUP which write-faults the memory, notifying
> > + * the file system and dirtying the folio.
> > + * 2. Later, writeback is triggered, resulting in the folio being cleaned and
> > + * the PTE being marked read-only.
> > + * 3. The GUP caller writes to the folio, as it is mapped read/write via the
> > + * direct mapping.
> > + * 4. The GUP caller, now done with the page, unpins it and sets it dirty
> > + * (though it does not have to).
> > + *
> > + * This results in both data being written to a folio without writenotify, and
> > + * the folio being dirtied unexpectedly (if the caller decides to do so).
> > + */
> > +static bool writeable_file_mapping_allowed(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + unsigned long gup_flags)
> > +{
> > + /* If we aren't pinning then no problematic write can occur. */
> > + if (!(gup_flags & (FOLL_GET | FOLL_PIN)))
> > + return true;
>
> I think we should really not look at FOLL_GET here. Just check for FOLL_PIN
> (as said, even FOLL_LONGTERM would be sufficient, but I understand the
> reasoning to keep it, although I would drop it :P ). It also better matches
> your comment regarding pinning ...
>
> See the comment in is_valid_gup_args() regarding "LONGTERM can only be
> specified when pinning". (well, there we also check that FOLL_PIN has to be
> set ... ;) )
I think I will finally give in, in penance for the very silly mistake I made
below...
>
> > +
> > + /* We limit this check to the most egregious case - a long term pin. */
> > + if (!(gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + /* If the VMA requires dirty tracking then GUP will be problematic. */
> > + return vma_needs_dirty_tracking(vma);
>
>
> ... should that be "!vma_needs_dirty_tracking(vma)" ?
>
> If the fs needs dirty tracking, it should be disallowed.
>
> Maybe that explains why it's still working for Matthew in his s390x test.
> ... or I am too tired and messed up :)
>
No, no it was I who was too tired it seems! You're correct, this is wrong,
will respin with fix :))
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists