Message-ID: <2eaaff77-ec6e-405a-825a-168fe49c0884@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:18:14 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, "Paul E . McKenney"
 <paulmck@...nel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
 Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
 Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>, Matt Turner
 <mattst88@...il.com>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 "James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Sidhartha Kumar
 <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
 John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: madvise: implement lightweight guard page
 mechanism

On 21.10.24 23:35, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/21/24 23:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> I don't think there's really any value in that. There's just no sensible
>>> situation in which a user would care about this I don't think.
>>
>> Making sure nobody touches an area, and wile doing that somebody already
>> touched that area? I guess it could be worked around by
>> mprotect(PROT_NONE),madvise(GUARD),mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE) ...
>> which is not particularly nice :)
>>
>>>
>>> And if you're saying 'hey do MADV_DONTNEED if this fails and keep trying!'
>>> then why not just do that in the kernel?
>>
>> Heh, no!
>>
>> If user space doesn't expect there to be something, it should *fail*.
>> That's likely going to be the majority of use cases for guard pages
>> (happy to be told otherwise). No retry.
>>
>> And if user space expects there to be something it should zap ahead of
>> time (which some allocators maybe already do to free up memory after
>> free()) to then install the guard. No retry.
>>
>> There is this case where user space might be unsure. There, it might
>> make sense to retry exactly once.
> 
> I've thought so too and the RFC was implemented like this, but Jann came up
> with a scenario where a THP can cause the range including our
> to-be-installed guard pte to be populated even if the userspace is not
> trying to access that exact address, see here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAG48ez3vqbqyWb4bLdpqSUnhwqGo2OQetecNhEGPdCGDr94nbQ@mail.gmail.com/

Ah, THP, I should have realized that myself. Yes indeed, in some cases 
we'll have to zap because something was already populated. Not sure how 
often it will happen in practice, will depend on the use case.

For use cases like one "one static guard page every 2MiB", I would 
assume we install the guard pages early, before expecting any page 
faults in that area. Likely there are other ones where it might happen 
more frequently.

For uffd that does not apply, because khugepaged backs off with uffd 
enabled and the only way to resolve a fault is using uffd -- which 
places exactly what was requested by user space. So, no populated PTEs 
without actual page faults on the corresponding virtual addresses.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists