linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: Batch-zap large anonymous folio PTE mappings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bb871b52-526a-d4aa-5249-6105bc06aaba@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:15:27 +0100
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: Batch-zap large anonymous folio PTE mappings

On 03/08/2023 15:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>> With this patch, you'll might suddenly have mapcount > refcount for a folio, or
>>> am I wrong?
>>
>> Yes you would. Does that break things?
>>
> 
> It is problematic whenever you want to check for additional page references that
> are not from mappings (i.e., GUP refs/pins or anything else)
> 
> One example lives in KSM code (!compound only):
> 
> page_mapcount(page) + 1 + swapped != page_count(page)
> 
> Another one in compaction code:
> 
> if (!mapping && (folio_ref_count(folio) - 1) > folio_mapcount(folio))
> 
> And another one in khugepaged (is_refcount_suitable)
> 
> ... and in THP split can_split_folio() (although that can deal with false
> positives and false negatives).
> 
> 
> We want to avoid detecting "no other references" if there *are* other
> references. Detecting "there are other references" although there are not is
> usually better.
> 
> 
> Assume you have mapcount > refcount for some time due to concurrent unmapping,
> AND some unrelated reference. You would suddenly pass these checks (mapcount ==
> refcount) and might not detect other references.

OK. I'll rework with the 2 loop approach, assuming I can calculate the number of
free slots in the mmu_gather ahead of time.


> 
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < nr_pages;) {
>>>> +        ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>>>> +        tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>> +        zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
>>>> +        full = __tlb_remove_page(tlb, page, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +        if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) < 1))
>>>> +            print_bad_pte(vma, addr, ptent, page);
>>>
>>> Can we avoid new users of page_mapcount() outside rmap code, please? :)
>>
>> Sure. This is just trying to replicate the same diagnstics that's done on the
>> non-batched path. I'm happy to remove it.
> 
> Spotted it afterwards in the existing code already, so you're effetively not
> adding new ones.
>