linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in the faulting path

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: <3eb8e1e2-5887-47ed-addc-3be664dd7053@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:08:16 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Gavin Guo <gavinguo@...lia.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in
 the faulting path

On 17.06.25 14:04, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 01:27:18PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>    @@ -6198,6 +6198,8 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>     	 * in scenarios that used to work. As a side effect, there can still
>>>     	 * be leaks between processes, for example, with FOLL_GET users.
>>>     	 */
>>>    +	if (folio_test_anon(old_folio))
>>>    +		folio_lock(old_folio);
>>
>> If holding the PTL, this would not work. You'd have to unlock PTL, lock
>> folio, retake PTL, check pte_same.
> 
> Why so?
> 
> hugetlb_no_page() has already checked pte_same under PTL, then mapped the page
> and called hugetlb_wp().
> 
>   hugetlb_no_page
>    vmf->ptl = huge_pte_lock()
>    pte_same
>    set_huge_pte_at
>    hugetlb_wp
> 
> and in hugetlb_wp() we're still holding the PTL.
> Why do we have to release PTL in order to lock the folio?
> This folio can't have been unmapped because we're holding PTL, right?
> And it can't have been truncaed for the same reason.
> 
> It's because some lock-order issue?

folio lock is a sleeping lock, PTL is a spinlock. :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb