linux-kernel - Re: [DISCUSSION] Unconditionally lock folios when calling rmap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+EESO42EqQps7C7P1HfMJ07ioRnkktKGXO42VU0fHT_1xvC8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:04:44 -0700
From: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, 
	"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, 
	android-mm <android-mm@...gle.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Unconditionally lock folios when calling rmap_walk()

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:01 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 02.09.25 20:59, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:04 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> > <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:42:45AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do wonder if we can identify this case and handle things differently.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps even saying 'try and get the rmap lock, but if there's "too much"
> >>>>> contention, grab the folio lock.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please elaborate what you mean? Where do you mean we can
> >>>> possibly do something like this?
> >>>>
> >>>> UFFD move only works on PageAnonExclusive folios. So, would it help
> >>>> (in terms of avoiding contention) if we were to change the condition:
> >>>
> >>> I think we shouldn't be using PAE here. Once could consider using
> >>> folio_maybe_mapped_shared(), and assume contention on the folio lock if it
> >>> is maybe mapped shared.
> >>
> >> Interesting!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> But the real question is with whom we would be contending for the folio
> >>> lock.
> >>>
> >>> Is it really other processes mapping that folio? I'm not so sure.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I might go off and do some research myself on this, actually. Nail down
> >> wehre this might actually happen.
> >>
> >> Generally I'm softening on this and maybe we're good with the proposed change.
> >>
> >> But still want to be super careful here... :)
> >>
> > Anxiously waiting for your assessment. Fingers crossed :)
>
> I'd suggest you prepare an RFC patch where you neatly summarize all we
> learned so far. :)
>
Sounds good. Will do. Thanks.
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>