linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: entirely reuse the whole anon mTHP in do_wp

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: <CAGsJ_4z=wHXa4Mug8RZJa4zULndPA0k9dw+OC41Lbv4nJUw3Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:09:05 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, 
	Chuanhua Han <hanchuanhua@...o.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, 
	Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: entirely reuse the whole anon mTHP in do_wp_page

On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 9:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > +             idx = folio_page_idx(folio, vmf->page);
> > +             folio_start = address - idx * PAGE_SIZE;
> > +             folio_end = folio_start + nr * PAGE_SIZE;
> > +
> > +             if (unlikely(folio_start < max(address & PMD_MASK, vma->vm_start)))
> > +                     return false;
> > +             if (unlikely(folio_end > pmd_addr_end(address, vma->vm_end)))
> > +                     return false;
> > +             folio_ptep = vmf->pte - idx;
> > +             folio_pte = ptep_get(folio_ptep);
> > +             if (!pte_present(folio_pte) || pte_pfn(folio_pte) != folio_pfn(folio))
> > +                     return false;
> > +             if (folio_pte_batch(folio, folio_start, folio_ptep, folio_pte, nr, 0,
> > +                             NULL, NULL, NULL) != nr)
> > +                     return false;
> > +             if (folio_mapcount(folio) != nr)
> > +                     return false;
>
> BTW, you're not checking against the refcount (and it's all a bit racy
> on concurrent unmapping!). So you're re-introducing the vmsplice
> child->parent attak.

i don't quite understand this, you mean the below is not enough?

-       if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) > 3)
+       if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) > 2 + nr)
                return false;
        if (!folio_test_lru(folio))
                /*
@@ -3591,13 +3627,13 @@ static bool wp_can_reuse_anon_folio(struct folio *folio,
                 * remote LRU caches or references to LRU folios.
                 */
                lru_add_drain();
-       if (folio_ref_count(folio) > 1 + folio_test_swapcache(folio))
+       if (folio_ref_count(folio) > nr + folio_test_swapcache(folio))
                return false;
        if (!folio_trylock(folio))
                return false;
        if (folio_test_swapcache(folio))
                folio_free_swap(folio);
-       if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) != 1) {
+       if (folio_test_ksm(folio) || folio_ref_count(folio) != nr) {
                folio_unlock(folio);
                return false;

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>