On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:35:09AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 04:46:03PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:56:20AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > This allows uffd-wp to support write-protected pages for COW.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > > > index 9d4433044c21..ae93721f3795 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > > > @@ -77,14 +77,13 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct
> > > > vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > > > if (pte_present(oldpte)) {
> > > > pte_t ptent;
> > > > bool preserve_write = prot_numa &&
> > > > pte_write(oldpte);
> > > > + struct page *page;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Avoid trapping faults against the zero or KSM
> > > > * pages. See similar comment in
> > > > change_huge_pmd.
> > > > */
> > > > if (prot_numa) {
> > > > - struct page *page;
> > > > -
> > > > page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr,
> > > > oldpte);
> > > > if (!page || PageKsm(page))
> > > > continue;
> > > > @@ -114,6 +113,46 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct
> > > > vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > > > continue;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Detect whether we'll need to COW before
> > > > + * resolving an uffd-wp fault. Note that this
> > > > + * includes detection of the zero page (where
> > > > + * page==NULL)
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (uffd_wp_resolve) {
> > > > + /* If the fault is resolved already,
> > > > skip */
> > > > + if (!pte_uffd_wp(*pte))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr,
> > > > oldpte);
> > > > + if (!page || page_mapcount(page) > 1) {
> > >
> > > This is wrong, if you allow page to be NULL then you gonna segfault
> > > in wp_page_copy() down below. Are you sure you want to test for
> > > special page ? For anonymous memory this should never happens ie
> > > anon page always are regular page. So if you allow userfaulfd to
> > > write protect only anonymous vma then there is no point in testing
> > > here beside maybe a BUG_ON() just in case ...
> >
> > It's majorly for zero pages where page can be NULL. Would this be
> > clearer:
> >
> > if (is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(old_pte)) || (page && page_mapcount(page)))
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Now we treat zero pages as normal COW pages so we'll do COW here even
> > for zero pages. I think maybe we can do special handling on all over
> > the places for zero pages (e.g., we don't write protect a PTE if we
> > detected that this is the zero PFN) but I'm uncertain on whether
> > that's what we want, so I chose to start with current solution at
> > least to achieve functionality first.
>
> You can keep the vm_normal_page() in that case but split the if
> between page == NULL and page != NULL with mapcount > 1. As other-
> wise you will segfault below.
Could I ask what's the segfault you mentioned? My understanding is
that below code has taken page==NULL into consideration already, e.g.,
we only do get_page() if page!=NULL, and inside wp_page_copy() it has
similar considerations.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > + struct vm_fault vmf = {
> > > > + .vma = vma,
> > > > + .address = addr &
> > > > PAGE_MASK,
> > > > + .page = page,
> > > > + .orig_pte = oldpte,
> > > > + .pmd = pmd,
> > > > + /* pte and ptl not
> > > > needed */
> > > > + };
> > > > + vm_fault_t ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (page)
> > > > + get_page(page);
> > > > + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > > > + pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> > > > + ret = wp_page_copy(&vmf);
> > > > + /* PTE is changed, or OOM */
> > > > + if (ret == 0)
> > > > + /* It's done by others
> > > > */
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + else if (WARN_ON(ret !=
> > > > VM_FAULT_WRITE))
> > > > + return pages;
> > > > + pte =
> > > > pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm,
> > > > + pmd,
> > > > addr,
> > > > + &ptl);
> > >
> > > Here you remap the pte locked but you are not checking if the pte is
> > > the one you expect ie is it pointing to the copied page and does it
> > > have expect uffd_wp flag. Another thread might have raced between the
> > > time you called wp_page_copy() and the time you pte_offset_map_lock()
> > > I have not check the mmap_sem so maybe you are protected by it as
> > > mprotect is taking it in write mode IIRC, if so you should add a
> > > comments at very least so people do not see this as a bug.
> >
> > Thanks for spotting this. With nornal uffd-wp page fault handling
> > path we're only with read lock held (and I would suspect it's racy
> > even with write lock...). I agree that there can be a race right
> > after the COW has done.
> >
> > Here IMHO we'll be fine as long as it's still a present PTE, in other
> > words, we should be able to tolerate PTE changes as long as it's still
> > present otherwise we'll need to retry this single PTE (e.g., the page
> > can be quickly marked as migrating swap entry, or even the page could
> > be freed beneath us). Do you think below change look good to you to
> > be squashed into this patch?
>
> Ok, but below if must be after arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(); not before.
Oops... you are right. :)
Thanks,
>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index 73a65f07fe41..3423f9692838 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct
> > vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> >
> > flush_tlb_batched_pending(vma->vm_mm);
> > arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > do {
> > +retry_pte:
> > oldpte = *pte;
> > if (pte_present(oldpte)) {
> > pte_t ptent;
> > @@ -149,6 +150,13 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct
> > vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> >
> > pte =
> > pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm,
> > pmd, addr,
> > &ptl);
> > + if (!pte_present(*pte))
> > + /*
> > + * This PTE could have
> > + * been modified when COW;
> > + * retry it
> > + */
> > + goto retry_pte;
> > arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > }
> > }
--
Peter Xu
