linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm: Batch around can_change_pte

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: <0857761c-bb4c-4ea5-a96a-90d555673527@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 14:46:59 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: ryan.roberts@....com, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
 jannh@...gle.com, anshuman.khandual@....com, peterx@...hat.com,
 joey.gouly@....com, ioworker0@...il.com, baohua@...nel.org,
 kevin.brodsky@....com, quic_zhenhuah@...cinc.com,
 christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, namit@...are.com, hughd@...gle.com,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm: Batch around can_change_pte_writable()



On 29/04/25 2:57 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.04.25 11:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>>    #include "internal.h"
>>> -bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned 
>>> long addr,
>>> -                 pte_t pte)
>>> +bool can_change_ptes_writable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned 
>>> long addr,
>>> +                  pte_t pte, struct folio *folio, unsigned int nr)
>>>    {
>>>        struct page *page;
>>> @@ -67,8 +67,9 @@ bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_area_struct 
>>> *vma, unsigned long addr,
>>>             * write-fault handler similarly would map them writable 
>>> without
>>>             * any additional checks while holding the PT lock.
>>>             */
>>> -        page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, pte);
>>> -        return page && PageAnon(page) && PageAnonExclusive(page);
>>> +        if (!folio)
>>> +            folio = vm_normal_folio(vma, addr, pte);
>>> +        return folio_test_anon(folio) && ! 
>>> folio_maybe_mapped_shared(folio);
>>
>> Oh no, now I spot it. That is horribly wrong.
>>
>> Please understand first what you are doing.
> 
> Also, would expect that the cow.c selftest would catch that:
> 
> "vmsplice() + unmap in child with mprotect() optimization"
> 
> After fork() we have a R/O PTE in the parent. Our child then uses 
> vmsplice() and unmaps the R/O PTE, meaning it is only left mapped by the 
> parent.
> 
> ret = mprotect(mem, size, PROT_READ);
> ret |= mprotect(mem, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
> 
> should turn the PTE writable, although it shouldn't.
> 
> If that test case does not detect the issue you're introducing, we 
> should look into adding a test case that detects it.
> 

Hi David, I am afraid I don't understand my mistake :( PageAnon(page) 
boils down to folio_test_anon(folio). Next we want to determine whether 
the page underlying a PTE is mapped exclusively or not. I approximate 
this by folio_maybe_mapped_shared -> if the folio => all pages are 
mapped exclusively, then I convert the entire batch to writable. If one 
of the pages is mapped shared, then I do not convert the batch to 
writable, thus missing out on the optimization. As far as I understand,
the test failure points out exactly this right?

Do you suggest an alternate way? My initial approach was to add a new 
flag to folio_pte_batch: FPB_IGNORE_ANON_EXCLUSIVE, but from an API 
design PoV Ryan pointed out that that looked bad.