linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] Add support for shared PTEs across processes

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: <d56b1326-74e3-4782-a5c7-0451f08cf10b@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:23:27 -0700
From: Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, markhemm@...glemail.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, david@...hat.com, khalid@...nel.org,
        andreyknvl@...il.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, luto@...nel.org,
        brauner@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, vasily.averin@...ux.dev, xhao@...ux.alibaba.com,
        pcc@...gle.com, neilb@...e.de, maz@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] Add support for shared PTEs across processes


On 10/7/24 2:01 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Anthony Yznaga wrote:
>> This patch series implements a mechanism that allows userspace
>> processes to opt into sharing PTEs. It adds a new in-memory
>> filesystem - msharefs. A file created on msharefs represents a
>> shared region where all processes mapping that region will map
>> objects within it with shared PTEs. When the file is created,
>> a new host mm struct is created to hold the shared page tables
>> and vmas for objects later mapped into the shared region. This
>> host mm struct is associated with the file and not with a task.
> Taskless mm_struct can be problematic. Like, we don't have access to it's
> counters because it is not represented in /proc. For instance, there's no
> way to check its smaps.

Definitely needs exposure in /proc. One of the things I'm looking into 
is the feasibility of showing the mappings in maps/smaps/etc..


>
> Also, I *think* it is immune to oom-killer because oom-killer looks for a
> victim task, not mm.
> I hope it is not an intended feature :P

oom-killer would have to kill all sharers of an mshare region before the 
mshare region itself could be freed, but I'm not sure that oom-killer 
would be the one to free the region. An mshare region is essentially a 
shared memory object not unlike a tmpfs or hugetlb file. I think some 
higher level intelligence would have to be involved to release it if 
appropriate when under oom conditions.


>
>> When a process mmap's the shared region, a vm flag VM_SHARED_PT
>> is added to the vma. On page fault the vma is checked for the
>> presence of the VM_SHARED_PT flag.
> I think it is wrong approach.
>
> Instead of spaying VM_SHARED_PT checks across core-mm, we need to add a
> generic hooks that can be used by mshare and hugetlb. And remove
> is_vm_hugetlb_page() check from core-mm along the way.
>
> BTW, is_vm_hugetlb_page() callsites seem to be the indicator to check if
> mshare has to do something differently there. I feel you miss a lot of
> such cases.

Good point about is_vm_hugetlb_page(). I'll review the callsites (there 
are only ~60 of them :-).


Thanks,

Anthony