linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

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, 13 Feb 2024 10:25:26 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...roid.com, aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, 
	david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, bgeffon@...gle.com, 
	willy@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, 
	ngeoffray@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:14 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:06 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240213 06:25]:
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:33 PM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240212 19:19]:
> > > > > All userfaultfd operations, except write-protect, opportunistically use
> > > > > per-vma locks to lock vmas. On failure, attempt again inside mmap_lock
> > > > > critical section.
> > > > >
> > > > > Write-protect operation requires mmap_lock as it iterates over multiple
> > > > > vmas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/userfaultfd.c              |  13 +-
> > > > >  include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h |   5 +-
> > > > >  mm/userfaultfd.c              | 392 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > >  3 files changed, 312 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> >
> > I just remembered an issue with the mmap tree that exists today that you
> > needs to be accounted for in this change.
> >
> > If you hit a NULL VMA, you need to fall back to the mmap_lock() scenario
> > today.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, isn't that already handled in the patch?
> We get the VMA outside mmap_lock critical section only via
> lock_vma_under_rcu() (in lock_vma() and find_and_lock_vmas()) and in
> both cases if we get NULL in return, we retry in mmap_lock critical
> section with vma_lookup(). Wouldn't that suffice?

I think that case is handled correctly by lock_vma().

Sorry for coming back a bit late. The overall patch looks quite good
but the all these #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK seem unnecessary to me.
Why find_and_lock_vmas() and lock_mm_and_find_vmas() be called the
same name (find_and_lock_vmas()) and in one case it would lock only
the VMA and in the other case it takes mmap_lock? Similarly
unlock_vma() would in one case unlock the VMA and in the other drop
the mmap_lock? That would remove all these #ifdefs from the code.
Maybe this was already discussed?

> >
> > This is a necessity to avoid a race of removal/replacement of a VMA in
> > the mmap(MAP_FIXED) case.  In this case, we munmap() prior to mmap()'ing
> > an area - which means you could see a NULL when there never should have
> > been a null.
> >
> > Although this would be exceedingly rare, you need to handle this case.
> >
> > Sorry I missed this earlier,
> > Liam