From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
william.kucharski@oracle.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
schmitzmic@gmail.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
weixugc@google.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/8] mm: Avoid using set_page_count() in set_page_recounted()
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:20:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19d16b40-355f-3f79-dcba-e1d8d2216d33@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bBiomTe-vOuxM_R+0CMAippyrfZ6AgpXQGqps3ZFQCtRA@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/27/21 11:27, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:12 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/26/21 11:21, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>> It must return the same thing, if it does not we have a bug in our
>>> kernel which may lead to memory corruptions and security holes.
>>>
>>> So today we have this:
>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page), page); -> check ref_count is 0
>>> < What if something modified here? Hmm..>
>>> set_page_count(page, 1); -> Yet we reset it to 1.
>>>
>>> With my proposed change:
>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page), page); -> check ref_count is 0
>>> refcnt = page_ref_inc_return(page); -> ref_count better be 1.
>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(refcnt != 1, page); -> Verify that it is 1.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you are just repeating what the diffs say.
>>
>> But it's still not good to have this function name doing something completely
>> different than its name indicates.
>
> I see, I can rename it to: 'set_page_recounted/get_page_recounted' ?
>
What? No, that's not where I was going at all. The function is already
named set_page_refcounted(), and one of the problems I see is that your
changes turn it into something that most certainly does not
set_page_refounted(). Instead, this patch *increments* the refcount.
That is not the same thing.
And then it uses a .config-sensitive assertion to "prevent" problems.
And by that I mean, the wording throughout this series seems to equate
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() assertions with real assertions. They are only active,
however, in CONFIG_DEBUG_VM configurations, and provide no protection at
all for normal (most distros) users. That's something that the wording,
comments, and even design should be tweaked to account for.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand where this patchset is going, but this intermediate step is
>>>> not a good move.
>>>>
>>>> Also, for the overall series, if you want to change from
>>>> "set_page_count()" to "inc_and_verify_val_equals_one()", then the way to
>>>> do that is *not* to depend solely on VM_BUG*() to verify. Instead,
>>>> return something like -EBUSY if incrementing the value results in a
>>>> surprise, and let the caller decide how to handle it.
>>>
>>> Actually, -EBUSY would be OK if the problems were because we failed to
>>> modify refcount for some reason, but if we modified refcount and got
>>> an unexpected value (i.e underflow/overflow) we better report it right
>>> away instead of waiting for memory corruption to happen.
>>>
>>
>> Having the caller do the BUG() or VM_BUG*() is not a significant delay.
>
> We cannot guarantee that new callers in the future will check return
> values, the idea behind this work is to ensure that we are always
> protected from refcount underflow/overflow and invalid refcount
> modifications by set_refcount.
>
I don't have a problem with putting assertions closest to where they should
fire. That's a good thing. I'm looking here for ways to fix up the problems
listed in the points above, though.
And I do want to point out another thing, though, and that is: generally, we
don't have to program to quite the level of defensiveness you seem to be at.
If return values must be checked, they usually are in the kernel--and we even
have tooling to enforce it:
/*
* gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-warn_005funused_005fresult-function-attribute
* clang: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#nodiscard-warn-unused-result
*/
#define __must_check __attribute__((__warn_unused_result__))
Please take that into consideration when weighing tradeoffs, just sort of in
general.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-28 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-26 17:38 [RFC 0/8] Hardening page _refcount Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 1/8] mm: add overflow and underflow checks for page->_refcount Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 19:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-26 21:34 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-27 1:21 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-27 3:04 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-27 18:22 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-27 7:46 ` Muchun Song
2021-10-27 18:22 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-28 4:08 ` Muchun Song
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 2/8] mm/hugetlb: remove useless set_page_count() Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 18:44 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-10-26 18:50 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 21:19 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 3/8] mm: Avoid using set_page_count() in set_page_recounted() Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 17:53 ` John Hubbard
2021-10-26 18:01 ` John Hubbard
2021-10-26 18:14 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 18:21 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-27 5:12 ` John Hubbard
2021-10-27 18:27 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-28 1:20 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2021-10-28 1:35 ` John Hubbard
2021-11-01 14:30 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-11-01 19:35 ` John Hubbard
2021-11-01 14:22 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-11-01 19:31 ` John Hubbard
2021-11-01 19:42 ` John Hubbard
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 4/8] mm: remove set_page_count() from page_frag_alloc_align Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 5/8] mm: avoid using set_page_count() when pages are freed into allocator Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 6/8] mm: rename init_page_count() -> page_ref_init() Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-27 6:46 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 7/8] mm: remove set_page_count() Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 17:38 ` [RFC 8/8] mm: simplify page_ref_* functions Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 18:23 ` [RFC 0/8] Hardening page _refcount Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-26 18:30 ` Pasha Tatashin
2021-10-26 20:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-26 21:24 ` Pasha Tatashin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=19d16b40-355f-3f79-dcba-e1d8d2216d33@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=schmitzmic@gmail.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=william.kucharski@oracle.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).