linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: propagate VM

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: <f016fc4a-8b95-4064-8808-5ce61bf5b7ec@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:09:37 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: propagate VM_SOFTDIRTY on merge



On 14/11/25 11:23 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Currently we set VM_SOFTDIRTY when a new mapping is set up (whether by
> establishing a new VMA, or via merge) as implemented in __mmap_complete()
> and do_brk_flags().
> 
> However, when performing a merge of existing mappings such as when
> performing mprotect(), we may lose the VM_SOFTDIRTY flag.
> 
> This is because currently we simply ignore VM_SOFTDIRTY for the purposes of
> merge, so one VMA may possess the flag and another not, and whichever
> happens to be the target VMA will be the one upon which the merge is
> performed which may or may not have VM_SOFTDIRTY set.
> 
> Now we have the concept of 'sticky' VMA flags, let's make VM_SOFTDIRTY one
> which solves this issue.
> 
> Additionally update VMA userland tests to propagate changes.
> 
> Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/mm.h               | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 43eec43da66a..fd9eeff07eb5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -532,29 +532,28 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
>   * possesses it but the other does not, the merged VMA should nonetheless have
>   * applied to it:
>   *
> + *   VM_SOFTDIRTY - if a VMA is marked soft-dirty, that is has not had its
> + *                  references cleared via /proc/$pid/clear_refs, any merged VMA
> + *                  should be considered soft-dirty also as it operates at a VMA
> + *                  granularity.
> + *
>   * VM_MAYBE_GUARD - If a VMA may have guard regions in place it implies that
>   *                  mapped page tables may contain metadata not described by the
>   *                  VMA and thus any merged VMA may also contain this metadata,
>   *                  and thus we must make this flag sticky.
>   */
> -#define VM_STICKY VM_MAYBE_GUARD
> +#define VM_STICKY (VM_SOFTDIRTY | VM_MAYBE_GUARD)
>  
>  /*
>   * VMA flags we ignore for the purposes of merge, i.e. one VMA possessing one
>   * of these flags and the other not does not preclude a merge.
>   *
> - * VM_SOFTDIRTY - Should not prevent from VMA merging, if we match the flags but
> - *                dirty bit -- the caller should mark merged VMA as dirty. If
> - *                dirty bit won't be excluded from comparison, we increase
> - *                pressure on the memory system forcing the kernel to generate
> - *                new VMAs when old one could be extended instead.
> - *
> - *    VM_STICKY - If one VMA has flags which most be 'sticky', that is ones
> - *                which should propagate to all VMAs, but the other does not,
> - *                the merge should still proceed with the merge logic applying
> - *                sticky flags to the final VMA.
> + * VM_STICKY - If one VMA has flags which most be 'sticky', that is ones
> + *             which should propagate to all VMAs, but the other does not,
> + *             the merge should still proceed with the merge logic applying
> + *             sticky flags to the final VMA.
>   */
> -#define VM_IGNORE_MERGE (VM_SOFTDIRTY | VM_STICKY)
> +#define VM_IGNORE_MERGE VM_STICKY

Logically VM_STICKY should be the only flag qualifying for VM_IGNORE_MERGE. In that
case should not VM_IGNORE_MERGE flag be dropped all together ?