linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v22 1/4] mm: add MAP_DROPPABLE for designating always lazily freeable mappings

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: <CAOUHufZuMdN31WnbwctyFv+o8nAfVBaiHZa9Ud_cz6QAoNQHxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:58:57 -0600
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>, 
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 1/4] mm: add MAP_DROPPABLE for designating always
 lazily freeable mappings

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:53 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11.07.24 21:49, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:20 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.07.24 21:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 11.07.24 20:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>> On 11.07.24 20:54, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 08:24:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>> And PG_large_rmappable seems to only be used for hugetlb branches.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It should be set for THP/large folios.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it's tested too, apparently.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Okay, well, how disappointing is this below? Because I'm running out of
> >>>>> tricks for flag reuse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> >>>>> index b9e914e1face..c1ea49a7f198 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> >>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ enum pageflags {
> >>>>>              PG_workingset,
> >>>>>              PG_error,
> >>>>>              PG_owner_priv_1,        /* Owner use. If pagecache, fs may use*/
> >>>>> +   PG_owner_priv_2,
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh no, no new page flags please :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe just follow what Linux suggested: pass vma to pte_dirty() and
> >>>> always return false for these special VMAs.
> >>>
> >>> ... or look into removing that one case that gives us headake.
> >>>
> >>> No idea what would happen if we do the following:
> >>>
> >>> CCing Yu Zhao.
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >>> index 0761f91b407f..d1dfbd4fd38d 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >>> @@ -4280,14 +4280,9 @@ static bool sort_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct scan_c
> >>>                    return true;
> >>>            }
> >>>
> >>> -       /* dirty lazyfree */
> >>> -       if (type == LRU_GEN_FILE && folio_test_anon(folio) && folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> >>> -               success = lru_gen_del_folio(lruvec, folio, true);
> >>> -               VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(!success, folio);
> >>> -               folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
> >>> -               lruvec_add_folio_tail(lruvec, folio);
> >>> -               return true;
> >>> -       }
> >>> +       /* lazyfree: we may not be allowed to set swapbacked: MAP_DROPPABLE */
> >>> +       if (type == LRU_GEN_FILE && folio_test_anon(folio) && folio_test_dirty(folio))
> >>> +               return false;
> >
> > This is an optimization to avoid an unnecessary trip to
> > shrink_folio_list(), so it's safe to delete the entire 'if' block, and
> > that would be preferable than leaving a dangling 'if'.
>
> Great, thanks.
>
> >
> >> Note that something is unclear to me: are we maybe running into that
> >> code also if folio_set_swapbacked() is already set and we are not in the
> >> lazyfree path (in contrast to what is documented)?
> >
> > Not sure what you mean: either rmap sees pte_dirty() and does
> > folio_mark_dirty() and then folio_set_swapbacked(); or MGLRU does the
> > same sequence, with the first two steps in walk_pte_range() and the
> > last one here.
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> Checking for lazyfree is
>
> "folio_test_anon(folio) && !folio_test_swapbacked(folio)"
>
> Testing for dirtied lazyfree is
>
> "folio_test_anon(folio) && !folio_test_swapbacked(folio) &&
>   folio_test)dirty(folio)"
>
> So I'm wondering about the missing folio_test_swapbacked() test.

It's not missing: type == LRU_GEN_FILE means folio_is_file_lru(),
which in turn means !folio_test_swapbacked().