From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
"Jia He" <justin.he@arm.com>, "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
"Suzuki Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
"Punit Agrawal" <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
"Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
"Jun Yao" <yaojun8558363@gmail.com>,
"Alex Van Brunt" <avanbrunt@nvidia.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Ralph Campbell" <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
hejianet@gmail.com, "Kaly Xin" <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:51:24 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190919155124.56ps5vsd5al6g7hm@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190919154143.GA6472@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 03:41:43PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 06:00:07PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:00:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 05:00:27PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:19:14PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > > > > @@ -2152,20 +2163,34 @@ static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src, unsigned lo
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (unlikely(!src)) {
> > > > > void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(dst);
> > > > > - void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(va & PAGE_MASK);
> > > > > + void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(addr & PAGE_MASK);
> > > > > + pte_t entry;
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * This really shouldn't fail, because the page is there
> > > > > * in the page tables. But it might just be unreadable,
> > > > > * in which case we just give up and fill the result with
> > > > > - * zeroes.
> > > > > + * zeroes. On architectures with software "accessed" bits,
> > > > > + * we would take a double page fault here, so mark it
> > > > > + * accessed here.
> > > > > */
> > > > > + if (arch_faults_on_old_pte() && !pte_young(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> > > > > + spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> > > > > + if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
> > > > > + entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
> > > > > + if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr,
> > > > > + vmf->pte, entry, 0))
> > > > > + update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, vmf->pte);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > I don't follow.
> > > >
> > > > So if pte has changed under you, you don't set the accessed bit, but never
> > > > the less copy from the user.
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think it will not trigger the same problem?
> > > >
> > > > I think we need to make cow_user_page() fail in this case and caller --
> > > > wp_page_copy() -- return zero. If the fault was solved by other thread, we
> > > > are fine. If not userspace would re-fault on the same address and we will
> > > > handle the fault from the second attempt.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to clarify the semantics of this function and do as
> > > you suggest but the current comment is slightly confusing:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * If the source page was a PFN mapping, we don't have
> > > * a "struct page" for it. We do a best-effort copy by
> > > * just copying from the original user address. If that
> > > * fails, we just zero-fill it. Live with it.
> > > */
> > >
> > > Would any user-space rely on getting a zero-filled page here instead of
> > > a recursive fault?
> >
> > I don't see the point in zero-filled page in this case. SIGBUS sounds like
> > more appropriate response, no?
>
> I think misunderstood your comment. So, if !pte_same(), we should let
> userspace re-fault. This wouldn't be a user ABI change and it is
> bounded, can't end up in an infinite re-fault loop.
Right. !pte_same() can only happen if we raced with somebody else.
I cannot imagine situation when the race will happen more than few times
in a row.
> In case of a __copy_from_user_inatomic() error, SIGBUS would make more
> sense but it changes the current behaviour (zero-filling the page). This
> can be left for a separate patch, doesn't affect the arm64 case here.
I think it's safer to leave it as is. Maybe put WARN_ON_ONCE() or
something. There can be some obscure use-case that I don't see.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-19 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-18 13:19 [PATCH v4 0/3] fix double page fault on arm64 Jia He
2019-09-18 13:19 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper cpu_has_hw_af() Jia He
2019-09-18 14:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-09-18 16:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-09-18 14:20 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-09-18 16:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-09-19 1:55 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-09-18 13:19 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] arm64: mm: implement arch_faults_on_old_pte() on arm64 Jia He
2019-09-18 13:19 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared Jia He
2019-09-18 14:00 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-09-18 18:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-09-19 15:00 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-09-19 15:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-09-19 15:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2019-09-19 2:16 ` Jia He
2019-09-19 14:57 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-09-19 15:02 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-09-18 19:35 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-19 1:46 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
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=20190919155124.56ps5vsd5al6g7hm@black.fi.intel.com \
--to=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Kaly.Xin@arm.com \
--cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=avanbrunt@nvidia.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hejianet@gmail.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=justin.he@arm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=punitagrawal@gmail.com \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yaojun8558363@gmail.com \
/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).