| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHKPDzy0Z4a_rm8K=xnNBD9T+Y-cXCBYmQDG+3xinzuOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 10:05:39 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] memory: move exclusivity detection in do_wp_page()
into wp_can_reuse_anon_folio()
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Let's clean up do_wp_page() a bit, removing two labels and making it
> a easier to read.
>
> wp_can_reuse_anon_folio() now only operates on the whole folio. Move the
> SetPageAnonExclusive() out into do_wp_page(). No need to do this under
> page lock -- the page table lock is sufficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 1f0e3317cbdd..512f6f05620e 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -3358,6 +3358,44 @@ static vm_fault_t wp_page_shared(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static bool wp_can_reuse_anon_folio(struct folio *folio,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma)
Since this function is calling folio_move_anon_rmap(), I would suggest
changing its name to wp_reuse_anon_folio(). This would clarify that
it's actually doing that operation instead of just checking if it's
possible. That would also let us keep unconditional
SetPageAnonExclusive() in it and do that under folio lock like it used
to do (keeping rules simple). Other than that, it looks good to me.
> +{
> + /*
> + * We have to verify under folio lock: these early checks are
> + * just an optimization to avoid locking the folio and freeing
> + * the swapcache if there is little hope that we can reuse.
> + *
> + * KSM doesn't necessarily raise the folio refcount.
> + */
> + if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) > 3)
> + return false;
> + if (!folio_test_lru(folio))
> + /*
> + * We cannot easily detect+handle references from
> + * remote LRU caches or references to LRU folios.
> + */
> + lru_add_drain();
> + if (folio_ref_count(folio) > 1 + folio_test_swapcache(folio))
> + return false;
> + if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> + return false;
> + if (folio_test_swapcache(folio))
> + folio_free_swap(folio);
> + if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) != 1) {
> + folio_unlock(folio);
> + return false;
> + }
> + /*
> + * Ok, we've got the only folio reference from our mapping
> + * and the folio is locked, it's dark out, and we're wearing
> + * sunglasses. Hit it.
> + */
> + folio_move_anon_rmap(folio, vma);
> + folio_unlock(folio);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * This routine handles present pages, when
> * * users try to write to a shared page (FAULT_FLAG_WRITE)
> @@ -3444,49 +3482,14 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> /*
> * Private mapping: create an exclusive anonymous page copy if reuse
> * is impossible. We might miss VM_WRITE for FOLL_FORCE handling.
> + *
> + * If we encounter a page that is marked exclusive, we must reuse
> + * the page without further checks.
> */
> - if (folio && folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> - /*
> - * If the page is exclusive to this process we must reuse the
> - * page without further checks.
> - */
> - if (PageAnonExclusive(vmf->page))
> - goto reuse;
> -
> - /*
> - * We have to verify under folio lock: these early checks are
> - * just an optimization to avoid locking the folio and freeing
> - * the swapcache if there is little hope that we can reuse.
> - *
> - * KSM doesn't necessarily raise the folio refcount.
> - */
> - if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) > 3)
> - goto copy;
> - if (!folio_test_lru(folio))
> - /*
> - * We cannot easily detect+handle references from
> - * remote LRU caches or references to LRU folios.
> - */
> - lru_add_drain();
> - if (folio_ref_count(folio) > 1 + folio_test_swapcache(folio))
> - goto copy;
> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> - goto copy;
> - if (folio_test_swapcache(folio))
> - folio_free_swap(folio);
> - if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) != 1) {
> - folio_unlock(folio);
> - goto copy;
> - }
> - /*
> - * Ok, we've got the only folio reference from our mapping
> - * and the folio is locked, it's dark out, and we're wearing
> - * sunglasses. Hit it.
> - */
> - folio_move_anon_rmap(folio, vma);
> - SetPageAnonExclusive(vmf->page);
> - folio_unlock(folio);
> -reuse:
> + if (folio && folio_test_anon(folio) &&
> + (PageAnonExclusive(vmf->page) || wp_can_reuse_anon_folio(folio, vma))) {
> + if (!PageAnonExclusive(vmf->page))
> + SetPageAnonExclusive(vmf->page);
> if (unlikely(unshare)) {
> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> return 0;
> @@ -3494,7 +3497,6 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> wp_page_reuse(vmf);
> return 0;
> }
> -copy:
> /*
> * Ok, we need to copy. Oh, well..
> */
> --
> 2.41.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists