linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] support large folio for mlock

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: <04efd5eb-06c2-d449-8427-d7c30df962d1@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:32:40 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yuzhao@...gle.com, ryan.roberts@....com, shy828301@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] support large folio for mlock

On 09.07.23 15:25, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/8/2023 12:02 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> I would be tempted to allocate memory & copy to the new mlocked VMA.
>> The old folio will go on the deferred_list and be split later, or its
>> valid parts will be written to swap and then it can be freed.
> If the large folio splitting failure is because of GUP pages, can we
> do copy here?
> 
> Let's say, if the GUP page is target of DMA operation and DMA operation
> is ongoing. We allocated a new page and copy GUP page content to the
> new page, the data in the new page can be corrupted.

No, we may only replace anon pages that are flagged as maybe shared 
(!PageAnonExclusive). We must not replace pages that are exclusive 
(PageAnonExclusive) unless we first try marking them maybe shared. 
Clearing will fail if the page maybe pinned.

page_try_share_anon_rmap() implements the clearing logic, taking care of 
synchronizing against concurrent GUP-fast.

There are some additional nasty details regarding O_DIRECT. But once it 
completely switched from using FOLL_GET to properly using FOLL_PIN (a 
lot of that conversion already happened IIRC), we're fine in that regard.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb