Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: continue VM_FAULT_RETRY processing event for pre-faults

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 22 May 2019 23:38:29 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> (added kvm)
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:21:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 17:29:55 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > When get_user_pages*() is called with pages = NULL, the processing of
> > > VM_FAULT_RETRY terminates early without actually retrying to fault-in all
> > > the pages.
> > > 
> > > If the pages in the requested range belong to a VMA that has userfaultfd
> > > registered, handle_userfault() returns VM_FAULT_RETRY *after* user space
> > > has populated the page, but for the gup pre-fault case there's no actual
> > > retry and the caller will get no pages although they are present.
> > > 
> > > This issue was uncovered when running post-copy memory restore in CRIU
> > > after commit d9c9ce34ed5c ("x86/fpu: Fault-in user stack if
> > > copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() fails").
> > > 
> > > After this change, the copying of FPU state to the sigframe switched from
> > > copy_to_user() variants which caused a real page fault to get_user_pages()
> > > with pages parameter set to NULL.
> > 
> > You're saying that argument buf_fx in copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() is NULL?
> 
> Apparently I haven't explained well. The 'pages' parameter in the call to
> get_user_pages_unlocked() is NULL.

Doh.

> > If so was that expected by the (now cc'ed) developers of
> > d9c9ce34ed5c8923 ("x86/fpu: Fault-in user stack if
> > copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() fails")?
> > 
> > It seems rather odd.  copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() doesn't look like it's
> > expecting a NULL argument.
> > 
> > Also, I wonder if copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() would be better using
> > fault_in_pages_writeable() rather than get_user_pages_unlocked().  That
> > seems like it operates at a more suitable level and I guess it will fix
> > this issue also.
> 
> If I understand correctly, one of the points of d9c9ce34ed5c8923 ("x86/fpu:
> Fault-in user stack if copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() fails") was to to avoid
> page faults, hence the use of get_user_pages().
> 
> With fault_in_pages_writeable() there might be a page fault, unless I've
> completely mistaken.
> 
> Unrelated to copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(), the issue could happen if any call
> to get_user_pages() with pages parameter set to NULL tries to access
> userfaultfd-managed memory. Currently, there are 4 in tree users:
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c:198:8-31:  -> gup with !pages
> arch/x86/mm/mpx.c:423:11-25:  -> gup with !pages
> virt/kvm/async_pf.c:90:1-22:  -> gup with !pages
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:1437:6-20:  -> gup with !pages

OK.

> I don't know if anybody is using mpx with uffd and anyway mpx seems to go
> away.
> 
> As for KVM, I think that post-copy live migration of L2 guest might trigger
> that as well. Not sure though, I'm not really familiar with KVM code.
>  
> > > In post-copy mode of CRIU, the destination memory is managed with
> > > userfaultfd and lack of the retry for pre-fault case in get_user_pages()
> > > causes a crash of the restored process.
> > > 
> > > Making the pre-fault behavior of get_user_pages() the same as the "normal"
> > > one fixes the issue.
> > 
> > Should this be backported into -stable trees?
> 
> I think that it depends on whether KVM affected by this or not.
> 

How do we determine this?

I guess it doesn't matter much.