linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unintentional voluntary preemption in get_mmap_lock

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: <CAHk-=win-keZbx6GFC4Q6VXUiFLfWxVDqcAUoV2A38rN29H5Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:55:02 +0200
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unintentional voluntary preemption in get_mmap_lock_carefully

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 05:58, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> The might_sleep() is clearly safe, but I thought of a different take on
> the problem you've found, which is that we used to check need_resched
> on _every_ page fault, because we used to take the mmap_lock on every
> page fault.  Now we only check it on the minority of page faults which
> can't be handled under the VMA lock.  But we can't just slam a
> might_resched() into the start of the fault handler, because of the
> problem you outlined above.

Bah.

I decided that there is no way the might_sleep() can be the right
thing to do inside get_mmap_lock_carefully(), because the whole point
of that function existing is that we might have a kernel bug causing a
wild pointer access.

And that kernel bug would be about the subsequent oops, not the fact
that we might be sleeping in a bad context.

So I have just removed the existing might_sleep() entirely, because
both the warning it can generate _and_ the voluntary scheduling point
are bad things in that context.

I do think that maybe we should then re-introduce the might_sleep() in
some actually appropriate place in the page fault path, which might be
'handle_mm_fault()'.

But I think that's a separate - if related - issue to the whole "this
was always the wrong point for might_sleep()" issue that Mateusz
noticed.

We are generally much too timid about removing old debug checks that
don't really make sense.

               Linus