linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] mm/mremap: introduce more mergeable mremap via MREMAP_RELOCATE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <01803b0f-47ff-429c-a6af-33fee39b957b@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:53:02 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Liam R . Howlett"
 <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] mm/mremap: introduce more mergeable mremap via
 MREMAP_RELOCATE_ANON

On 22.03.25 08:21, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 07:17:05AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.03.25 06:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 22.03.25 01:14, Jann Horn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:54 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
>>>> <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
>>>>> index 0865387531ed..bb67562a0114 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/mremap.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
>>>> [...]
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * If the folio mapped at the specified pte entry can have its index and mapping
>>>>> + * relocated, then do so.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Returns the number of pages we have traversed, or 0 if the operation failed.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static unsigned long relocate_anon(struct pagetable_move_control *pmc,
>>>>> +               unsigned long old_addr, unsigned long new_addr, pte_t pte,
>>>>> +               bool undo)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       struct page *page;
>>>>> +       struct folio *folio;
>>>>> +       struct vm_area_struct *old, *new;
>>>>> +       pgoff_t new_index;
>>>>> +       unsigned long ret = 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       old = pmc->old;
>>>>> +       new = pmc->new;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /* Ensure we have truly got an anon folio. */
>>>>> +       page = vm_normal_page(old, old_addr, pte);
>>>>> +       if (!page)
>>>>> +               return ret;
>>>>> +       folio = page_folio(page);
>>>>> +       folio_lock(folio);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /* no-op. */
>>>>> +       if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_ksm(folio))
>>>>> +               goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /*
>>>>> +        * This should not happen as we explicitly disallow this, but check
>>>>> +        * anyway.
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>>>> +               ret = 0;
>>>>> +               goto out;
>>>>> +       }
>>>>
>>>> Do I understand correctly that you assume here that the page is
>>>> exclusively mapped? Maybe we could at least
>>>> WARN_ON(folio_mapcount(folio) != 1) or something like that?
>>>>
>>>> (I was also wondering if the PageAnonExclusive bit is somehow
>>>> relevant, but we should probably not look at or touch that here,
>>>> unless we want to think about cases where we _used to_ have a child
>>>> from which the page may have been GUP'd...)
>>>
>>> UFFDIO_MOVE implements something similar. Right now we keep it simple:
>>>
>>> 	if (folio_test_large(src_folio) ||
>>> 	    folio_maybe_dma_pinned(src_folio) ||
>>> 	    !PageAnonExclusive(&src_folio->page)) {
>>> 		err = -EBUSY;
>>> 		goto out;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> Whereby we
>>>
>>> a) Make sure we cover all PTEs (-> small folio, single PTE). Large
>>> PTE-mapped folios are split.
>>>
>>> b) Make sure there are no GUP pins (maybe not required here?)
>>>
>>> c) The folio is exclusive to this process
>>
>> On additional note as my memory comes back: if PAE is set, there cannot be
>> other (inactive) mappings from the swapcache. So whenever we use folio lock
>> + mapcount data, the possibility of the swapcache (having inactive mappings
>> from other processes etc.) must be considered.
> 
> Ack, do you have a feel for how such a check would work?

Likely under folio lock

if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) && !folio_free_swap(folio)) {
	/* unable to move. */
	folio_unlock(folio)
	return -ENOTGOINGTOHAPPEN;
}

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb