linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Turn off test_uffdio_wp if CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZnwOdqRcsiNeWNKT@fedora>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:49:58 -0400
From: Audra Mitchell <audra@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, aarcange@...hat.com,
	rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, shli@...com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, raquini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Turn off test_uffdio_wp if
 CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP is not configured.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 04:05:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:42:00 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > >         uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM;
> > > >         uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED;
> > > >         uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC;
> > > > #endif
> > > > 
> > > > If you run the userfaultfd selftests with the run_vmtests script we get
> > > > several failures stemming from trying to call uffdio_regsiter with the flag 
> > > > UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP. However, the kernel ensures in vma_can_userfault() 
> > > > that if CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP is disabled, only allow the VM_UFFD_WP -
> > > > which is set when you pass the UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP flag - on 
> > > > anonymous vmas.
> > > > 
> > > > In parse_test_type_arg() I added the features check against 
> > > > UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED as it seemed the most well know feature/flag. I'm 
> > > > more than happy to take any suggestions and adapt them if you have any! 
> > > 
> > > There're documents for these features in the headers:
> > > 
> > > 	 * UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM indicates that userfaultfd
> > > 	 * write-protection mode is supported on both shmem and hugetlbfs.
> > > 	 *
> > > 	 * UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED indicates that userfaultfd
> > > 	 * write-protection mode will always apply to unpopulated pages
> > > 	 * (i.e. empty ptes).  This will be the default behavior for shmem
> > > 	 * & hugetlbfs, so this flag only affects anonymous memory behavior
> > > 	 * when userfault write-protection mode is registered.
> > > 
> > > While in this context ("test_type != TEST_ANON") IIUC the accurate feature
> > > to check is UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM.
> > > 
> > > In most kernels they should behave the same indeed, but note that since
> > > UNPOPULATED was introduced later than shmem/hugetlb support, it means on
> > > some kernel the result of checking these two features will be different.
> > 
> > I'm unsure what to do with this series.  Peter, your review comments
> > are unclear - do you request updates?
> 
> Yes, or some clarification from Audra would also work.
> 
> What I was trying to say is here I think the code should check against
> UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM instead.

I was meaning to reply back and ask if Andrew wanted me to push a v3 and
change the check from UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED to 
UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM or if he just wanted to do it, but I'll go
ahead and submit v3 with the change shortly. 

Also as an aside I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get the email list. I
probably should have thought a little bit about why the linux-mm list was
missing....

Sorry about the delay and confusion!

 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Peter Xu
>