| 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: <CAJuCfpHp=1eQa40gBL8dprhk=bFdEBJYA_UcBgpA7Z_fBeGSGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:37:39 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com,
oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com,
peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org,
brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: mark vma as detached until it's added into vma tree
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:43 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:46:33AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Current implementation does not set detached flag when a VMA is first
> > allocated. This does not represent the real state of the VMA, which is
> > detached until it is added into mm's VMA tree. Fix this by marking new
> > VMAs as detached and resetting detached flag only after VMA is added
> > into a tree.
> >
>
> This seems very sensible.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
>
> Aside from nits/refactoring suggestions below:
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/mm.h | 10 +++++++++-
> > mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> > mm/mmap.c | 2 ++
> > mm/nommu.c | 2 ++
> > mm/vma.c | 3 +++
> > tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h | 3 ++-
>
> Just want to say THANK YOU for taking the time to update the testing stubs :)
> Much appreciated!
>
> > 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index a5eb0be3e351..245a85caf4c3 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -812,6 +812,11 @@ static inline void vma_mark_detached(struct vm_area_struct *vma, bool detached)
> > vma->detached = detached;
> > }
> >
> > +static inline bool is_vma_detached(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > + return vma->detached;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline void release_fault_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > {
> > if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)
> > @@ -874,7 +879,10 @@ static inline void vma_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > vma->vm_mm = mm;
> > vma->vm_ops = &vma_dummy_vm_ops;
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vma->anon_vma_chain);
> > - vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
>
> How did this work before? Oh I guess we initialised the VMA lock earlier right?
Yes.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> > + /* vma is not locked, can't use vma_mark_detached() */
> > + vma->detached = true;
> > +#endif
> > vma_numab_state_init(vma);
> > vma_lock_init(vma);
> > }
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 209885a4134f..d0197a0c0996 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -6279,7 +6279,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct *lock_vma_under_rcu(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > goto inval;
> >
> > /* Check if the VMA got isolated after we found it */
> > - if (vma->detached) {
> > + if (is_vma_detached(vma)) {
> > vma_end_read(vma);
> > count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_MISS);
> > /* The area was replaced with another one */
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > index 386429f7db5a..1295c4cedaf4 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -1570,6 +1570,7 @@ static int do_brk_flags(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > if (vma_iter_store_gfp(vmi, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
> > goto mas_store_fail;
> >
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
> > mm->map_count++;
> > validate_mm(mm);
> > ksm_add_vma(vma);
> > @@ -1890,6 +1891,7 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *__install_special_mapping(
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
> >
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
>
> similar to vma_iter_store() comment, maybe worht putting in insert_vm_struct()?
Ah, this one I think is not needed because we already have
insert_vm_struct() -> vma_link() -> vma_mark_detached(vma, false)
>
> > vm_stat_account(mm, vma->vm_flags, len >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> >
> > perf_event_mmap(vma);
> > diff --git a/mm/nommu.c b/mm/nommu.c
> > index 9cb6e99215e2..6afd5c2bd97d 100644
> > --- a/mm/nommu.c
> > +++ b/mm/nommu.c
> > @@ -1192,6 +1192,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file,
> > current->mm->map_count++;
> > /* add the VMA to the tree */
> > vma_iter_store(&vmi, vma);
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
>
> Since we to seem always to do this with vma_iter_store() do we want to put this
> there? Or maybe make a wrapper around the two if that seems not to separate
> concerns enough?
I think wrapper would be helpful. I'll try that and see if that looks better.
>
> >
> > /* we flush the region from the icache only when the first executable
> > * mapping of it is made */
> > @@ -1357,6 +1358,7 @@ static int split_vma(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > setup_vma_to_mm(vma, mm);
> > setup_vma_to_mm(new, mm);
> > vma_iter_store(vmi, new);
> > + vma_mark_detached(new, false);
> > mm->map_count++;
> > return 0;
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vma.c b/mm/vma.c
> > index 8a454a7bbc80..1426871fa6e0 100644
> > --- a/mm/vma.c
> > +++ b/mm/vma.c
> > @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ static void vma_complete(struct vma_prepare *vp, struct vma_iterator *vmi,
> > * (it may either follow vma or precede it).
> > */
> > vma_iter_store(vmi, vp->insert);
> > + vma_mark_detached(vp->insert, false);
> > mm->map_count++;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1690,6 +1691,7 @@ int vma_link(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >
> > vma_start_write(vma);
> > vma_iter_store(&vmi, vma);
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
> > vma_link_file(vma);
> > mm->map_count++;
> > validate_mm(mm);
> > @@ -2369,6 +2371,7 @@ static int __mmap_new_vma(struct mmap_state *map, struct vm_area_struct **vmap)
> > /* Lock the VMA since it is modified after insertion into VMA tree */
> > vma_start_write(vma);
> > vma_iter_store(vmi, vma);
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
> > map->mm->map_count++;
> > vma_link_file(vma);
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h b/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> > index 1d9fc97b8e80..fdb60978821f 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> > @@ -438,7 +438,8 @@ static inline void vma_init(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > vma->vm_mm = mm;
> > vma->vm_ops = &vma_dummy_vm_ops;
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vma->anon_vma_chain);
> > - vma_mark_detached(vma, false);
> > + /* vma is not locked, can't use vma_mark_detached() */
> > + vma->detached = true;
>
> You're the best :)
Thanks!
>
> > }
> >
> > static inline struct vm_area_struct *vm_area_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > --
> > 2.47.0.277.g8800431eea-goog
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists