| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZrpdDI18wnYJcyIM@x1n>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:05:48 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] mm/fork: Accept huge pfnmap entries
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 08:50:12PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.08.24 20:29, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 07:59:58PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 09.08.24 19:15, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 06:32:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 09.08.24 18:08, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > > Teach the fork code to properly copy pfnmaps for pmd/pud levels. Pud is
> > > > > > much easier, the write bit needs to be persisted though for writable and
> > > > > > shared pud mappings like PFNMAP ones, otherwise a follow up write in either
> > > > > > parent or child process will trigger a write fault.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do the same for pmd level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > mm/huge_memory.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > > > index 6568586b21ab..015c9468eed5 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > > > @@ -1375,6 +1375,22 @@ int copy_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> > > > > > pgtable_t pgtable = NULL;
> > > > > > int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > + pmd = pmdp_get_lockless(src_pmd);
> > > > > > + if (unlikely(pmd_special(pmd))) {
> > > > > > + dst_ptl = pmd_lock(dst_mm, dst_pmd);
> > > > > > + src_ptl = pmd_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
> > > > > > + spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * No need to recheck the pmd, it can't change with write
> > > > > > + * mmap lock held here.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + if (is_cow_mapping(src_vma->vm_flags) && pmd_write(pmd)) {
> > > > > > + pmdp_set_wrprotect(src_mm, addr, src_pmd);
> > > > > > + pmd = pmd_wrprotect(pmd);
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + goto set_pmd;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > I strongly assume we should be using using vm_normal_page_pmd() instead of
> > > > > pmd_page() further below. pmd_special() should be mostly limited to GUP-fast
> > > > > and vm_normal_page_pmd().
> > > >
> > > > One thing to mention that it has this:
> > > >
> > > > if (!vma_is_anonymous(dst_vma))
> > > > return 0;
> > >
> > > Another obscure thing in this function. It's not the job of copy_huge_pmd()
> > > to make the decision whether to copy, it's the job of vma_needs_copy() in
> > > copy_page_range().
> > >
> > > And now I have to suspect that uffd-wp is broken with this function, because
> > > as vma_needs_copy() clearly states, we must copy, and we don't do that for
> > > PMDs. Ugh.
> > >
> > > What a mess, we should just do what we do for PTEs and we will be fine ;)
> >
> > IIUC it's not a problem: file uffd-wp is different from anonymous, in that
> > it pushes everything down to ptes.
> >
> > It means if we skipped one huge pmd here for file, then it's destined to
> > have nothing to do with uffd-wp, otherwise it should have already been
> > split at the first attempt to wr-protect.
>
> Is that also true for UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC, when we call
> pagemap_scan_thp_entry()->make_uffd_wp_pmd() ?
>
> I'm not immediately finding the code that does the "pushes everything down
> to ptes", so I might miss that part.
UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT should have all those covered, while I guess you're
right, looks like the pagemap ioctl is overlooked..
>
> >
> > >
> > > Also, we call copy_huge_pmd() only if "is_swap_pmd(*src_pmd) ||
> > > pmd_trans_huge(*src_pmd) || pmd_devmap(*src_pmd)"
> > >
> > > Would that even be the case with PFNMAP? I suspect that pmd_trans_huge()
> > > would return "true" for special pfnmap, which is rather "surprising", but
> > > fortunate for us.
> >
> > It's definitely not surprising to me as that's the plan.. and I thought it
> > shoulidn't be surprising to you - if you remember before I sent this one, I
> > tried to decouple that here with the "thp agnostic" series:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240717220219.3743374-1-peterx@redhat.com
> >
> > in which you reviewed it (which I appreciated).
> >
> > So yes, pfnmap on pmd so far will report pmd_trans_huge==true.
>
> I review way to much stuff to remember everything :) That certainly screams
> for a cleanup ...
Definitely.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Likely we should be calling copy_huge_pmd() if pmd_leaf() ... cleanup for
> > > another day.
> >
> > Yes, ultimately it should really be a pmd_leaf(), but since I didn't get
> > much feedback there, and that can further postpone this series from being
> > posted I'm afraid, then I decided to just move on with "taking pfnmap as
> > THPs". The corresponding change on this path is here in that series:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240717220219.3743374-7-peterx@redhat.com/
> >
> > @@ -1235,8 +1235,7 @@ copy_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > src_pmd = pmd_offset(src_pud, addr);
> > do {
> > next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> > - if (is_swap_pmd(*src_pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(*src_pmd)
> > - || pmd_devmap(*src_pmd)) {
> > + if (is_swap_pmd(*src_pmd) || pmd_is_leaf(*src_pmd)) {
> > int err;
> > VM_BUG_ON_VMA(next-addr != HPAGE_PMD_SIZE, src_vma);
> > err = copy_huge_pmd(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
> >
>
> Ah, good.
>
> [...]
>
> > > Yes, as stated above, likely broken with UFFD-WP ...
> > >
> > > I really think we should make this code just behave like it would with PTEs,
> > > instead of throwing in more "different" handling.
> >
> > So it could simply because file / anon uffd-wp work very differently.
>
> Or because nobody wants to clean up that code ;)
I think in this case maybe the fork() part is all fine? As long as we can
switch pagemap ioctl to do proper break-downs when necessary, or even try
to reuse what UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT does if still possible in some way.
In all cases, definitely sounds like another separate effort.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists