linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: memory: extend finish

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: <c48ae381-f073-4b20-84ae-bd5e9e56ce29@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:23:36 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 hughd@...gle.com
Cc: willy@...radead.org, david@...hat.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
 21cnbao@...il.com, ying.huang@...el.com, shy828301@...il.com,
 ziy@...dia.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: memory: extend finish_fault() to support
 large folio



On 2024/4/23 19:03, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 08:02, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> Add large folio mapping establishment support for finish_fault() as a preparation,
>> to support multi-size THP allocation of anonymous shared pages in the following
>> patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/memory.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index b6fa5146b260..094a76730776 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -4766,7 +4766,10 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>   {
>>   	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>>   	struct page *page;
>> +	struct folio *folio;
>>   	vm_fault_t ret;
>> +	int nr_pages, i;
>> +	unsigned long addr;
>>   
>>   	/* Did we COW the page? */
>>   	if ((vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
>> @@ -4797,22 +4800,30 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>   			return VM_FAULT_OOM;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	folio = page_folio(page);
>> +	nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>> +	addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> 
> I'm not sure this is safe. IIUC, finish_fault() is called for any file-backed
> mapping. So you could have a situation where part of a (regular) file is mapped
> in the process, faults and hits in the pagecache. But the folio returned by the
> pagecache is bigger than the portion that the process has mapped. So you now end
> up mapping beyond the VMA limits? In the pagecache case, you also can't assume
> that the folio is naturally aligned in virtual address space.

Good point. Yes, I think you are right, I need consider the VMA limits, 
and I should refer to the calculations of the start pte and end pte in 
do_fault_around().

>>   	vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>> -				      vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
>> +				       addr, &vmf->ptl);
>>   	if (!vmf->pte)
>>   		return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
>>   
>>   	/* Re-check under ptl */
>> -	if (likely(!vmf_pte_changed(vmf))) {
>> -		struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>> -
>> -		set_pte_range(vmf, folio, page, 1, vmf->address);
>> -		ret = 0;
>> -	} else {
>> +	if (nr_pages == 1 && vmf_pte_changed(vmf)) {
>>   		update_mmu_tlb(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
>>   		ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
>> +		goto unlock;
>> +	} else if (nr_pages > 1 && !pte_range_none(vmf->pte, nr_pages)) {
> 
> I think you have grabbed this from do_anonymous_page()? But I'm not sure it
> works in the same way here as it does there. For the anon case, if userfaultfd
> is armed, alloc_anon_folio() will only ever allocate order-0. So we end up in

IMO, the userfaultfd validation should do in the vma->vm_ops->fault() 
callback, to make sure the nr_pages is always 1 if userfaultfd is armed.

> the vmf_pte_changed() path, which will allow overwriting a uffd entry. But here,
> there is nothing stopping nr_pages being greater than 1 when there could be a
> uffd entry present, and you will fail due to the pte_range_none() check. (see
> pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp()).

So if we do the userfaultfd validation in ->fault() callback, then here 
we can use the same logic as with anonymous case.