linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) reducing tlb numbers over 90%

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: Thu, 30 May 2024 16:24:12 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
  <linux-mm@...ck.org>,  <kernel_team@...ynix.com>,
  <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  <vernhao@...cent.com>,
  <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,  <hughd@...gle.com>,
  <willy@...radead.org>,  <david@...hat.com>,  <peterz@...radead.org>,
  <luto@...nel.org>,  <tglx@...utronix.de>,  <mingo@...hat.com>,
  <bp@...en8.de>,  <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,  <rjgolo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) reducing tlb numbers
 over 90%

Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com> writes:

> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 09:11:45AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:41:22AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> >> On 5/28/24 22:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> >> > All the code updating ptes already performs TLB flush needed in a safe
>> >> > way if it's inevitable e.g. munmap.  LUF which controls when to flush in
>> >> > a higer level than arch code, just leaves stale ro tlb entries that are
>> >> > currently supposed to be in use.  Could you give a scenario that you are
>> >> > concering?
>> >> 
>> >> Let's go back this scenario:
>> >> 
>> >>  	fd = open("/some/file", O_RDONLY);
>> >>  	ptr1 = mmap(-1, size, PROT_READ, ..., fd, ...);
>> >>  	foo1 = *ptr1;
>> >> 
>> >> There's a read-only PTE at 'ptr1'.  Right?  The page being pointed to is
>> >> eligible for LUF via the try_to_unmap() paths.  In other words, the page
>> >> might be reclaimed at any time.  If it is reclaimed, the PTE will be
>> >> cleared.
>> >> 
>> >> Then, the user might do:
>> >> 
>> >> 	munmap(ptr1, PAGE_SIZE);
>> >> 
>> >> Which will _eventually_ wind up in the zap_pte_range() loop.  But that
>> >> loop will only see pte_none().  It doesn't do _anything_ to the 'struct
>> >> mmu_gather'.
>> >> 
>> >> The munmap() then lands in tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() where it looks at the
>> >> 'struct mmu_gather':
>> >> 
>> >>         if (!(tlb->freed_tables || tlb->cleared_ptes ||
>> >> 	      tlb->cleared_pmds || tlb->cleared_puds ||
>> >> 	      tlb->cleared_p4ds))
>> >>                 return;
>> >> 
>> >> But since there were no cleared PTEs (or anything else) during the
>> >> unmap, this just returns and doesn't flush the TLB.
>> >> 
>> >> We now have an address space with a stale TLB entry at 'ptr1' and not
>> >> even a VMA there.  There's nothing to stop a new VMA from going in,
>> >> installing a *new* PTE, but getting data from the stale TLB entry that
>> >> still hasn't been flushed.
>> >
>> > Thank you for the explanation.  I got you.  I think I could handle the
>> > case through a new flag in vma or something indicating LUF has deferred
>> > necessary TLB flush for it during unmapping so that mmu_gather mechanism
>> > can be aware of it.  Of course, the performance change should be checked
>> > again.  Thoughts?
>> 
>> I suggest you to start with the simple case.  That is, only support page
>> reclaiming and migration.  A TLB flushing can be enforced during unmap
>> with something similar as flush_tlb_batched_pending().
>
> While reading flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm), I found it already performs
> TLB flush for the target mm, if set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm) has been
> hit at least once since the last flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm).
>
> Since LUF also relies on set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm), it's going to
> perform TLB flush required, in flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm) during
> munmap().  So it looks safe to me with regard to munmap() already.
>
> Is there something that I'm missing?
>
> JFYI, regarding to mmap(), I have reworked on fault handler to give up
> luf when needed in a better way.

If TLB flush is always enforced during munmap(), then your solution can
only avoid TLB flushing for page reclaiming and migration, not unmap.
Or do I miss something?

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying