linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] mm/memory: further separate anon and pagecache folio handling in zap_present

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]

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:45:41 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] mm/memory: further separate anon and pagecache
 folio handling in zap_present_pte()

On 30/01/2024 08:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.24 09:31, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 29/01/2024 14:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We don't need up-to-date accessed-dirty information for anon folios and can
>>> simply work with the ptent we already have. Also, we know the RSS counter
>>> we want to update.
>>>
>>> We can safely move arch_check_zapped_pte() + tlb_remove_tlb_entry() +
>>> zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() after updating the folio and RSS.
>>>
>>> While at it, only call zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() if there is even
>>> any chance that pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() would do *something*.
>>> That is, just don't bother if uffd-wp does not apply.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>> index 69502cdc0a7d..20bc13ab8db2 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>> @@ -1552,12 +1552,9 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather
>>> *tlb,
>>>       folio = page_folio(page);
>>>       if (unlikely(!should_zap_folio(details, folio)))
>>>           return;
>>> -    ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>>> -    arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);
>>> -    tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>> -    zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
>>>         if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>>> +        ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>>>           if (pte_dirty(ptent)) {
>>>               folio_mark_dirty(folio);
>>>               if (tlb_delay_rmap(tlb)) {
>>> @@ -1567,8 +1564,17 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather
>>> *tlb,
>>>           }
>>>           if (pte_young(ptent) && likely(vma_has_recency(vma)))
>>>               folio_mark_accessed(folio);
>>> +        rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        /* We don't need up-to-date accessed/dirty bits. */
>>> +        ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>>> +        rss[MM_ANONPAGES]--;
>>>       }
>>> -    rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
>>> +    arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);
>>
>> Isn't the x86 (only) implementation of this relying on the dirty bit? So doesn't
>> that imply you still need get_and_clear for anon? (And in hindsight I think that
>> logic would apply to the previous patch too?)
> 
> x86 uses the encoding !writable && dirty to indicate special shadow stacks. That
> is, the hw dirty bit is set by software (to create that combination), not by
> hardware.
> 
> So you don't have to sync against any hw changes of the hw dirty bit. What you
> had in the original PTE you read is sufficient.
> 

Right, got it. In that case:

Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>