From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA2EC77B75 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 21:12:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BEDC66B0072; Fri, 5 May 2023 17:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B9D3B900002; Fri, 5 May 2023 17:12:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A8C4D6B007B; Fri, 5 May 2023 17:12:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540626B0072 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 17:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-30644c18072so1550816f8f.2 for ; Fri, 05 May 2023 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683321168; x=1685913168; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ivGNSditmdzeyn97THXeuK5ctfSInTGF99RwYTHxIyU=; b=Se4RPOYgOfoiULFR7wuPRZx0PsUzRm5UV2nhzweK+31TUkjUE6hKIdXlZgE09l+KRu lRwdl2KESe9bIc7ePbVexlK589ChfPZjGVTj6cw9jl2YhiUNWUWigagPt2ir8DoQefZD T+j1ZcJzgqjcHyyPs/nRMUHX+VNVayUJHgnywRuBRa+NpWNWtksGrDjfcUOR+7zXYEeK 0A7cuMoIOjMgMsgPWidsQ6IMbMhgdb2YllCI0JNK1bU+uvsVJJKjtrmp2sImuntq/wMT HAZExBVApKK+sE7XsIFEHYMN+XbHQ1Ctx0rwgWlpooKzIDjA9Ox1W0DLx6oz4zcqQMLi uPXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683321168; x=1685913168; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ivGNSditmdzeyn97THXeuK5ctfSInTGF99RwYTHxIyU=; b=ZNX2uyPEG1KOu7qKP/W0ZKfxIVtPWOmJmGpeeeKUSwq0jpvVuwGq6VG+mH5ZRKgkcn R6pipCYeufaJqZKryeuLz1dcbJ9+W8ifjQr8BPZUlmaEU0zLbA58xwDQ4HpL8/HHfnqK 4qYlYFp0ZZIMASGjS/hgvXIxnDkbT8GNSJJjqMY2KCd+p9GShPf/3xtSM4mGYgAhVKXH pDxQTKJOCim6oXg9oIKWmA+SPry8Tr0rCZNguLSL1eVnBLPUyCCfozlsvHatya7xb37I yeLMI4fPDu7ywHSEdsrdyxCpb9FA1LFBeUd1ozOgv+UY6agv9fsWOST7rLp5LDJrcdtT G2Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzhL+ml1PwhAtsy9T54o0JERTISLc9LdcJTNPJLQKoMtBAnOS7/ Hl1Jcw+V4DGQKsSGR+f6yMY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4PoDkiooUQXPtEqVD0dJPVF0uY7rTGd+8/bIp0RwQ/+pfrOoEqfDcAJezNAwrh0MAE+evlug== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e987:0:b0:306:64b7:5413 with SMTP id h7-20020adfe987000000b0030664b75413mr2160113wrm.71.1683321167903; Fri, 05 May 2023 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (host86-156-84-164.range86-156.btcentralplus.com. [86.156.84.164]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l8-20020a5d4bc8000000b0030631f199f9sm3354382wrt.34.2023.05.05.14.12.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 May 2023 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 22:12:45 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , Jason Gunthorpe , Matthew Wilcox , Dennis Dalessandro , Leon Romanovsky , Christian Benvenuti , Nelson Escobar , Bernard Metzler , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , Bjorn Topel , Magnus Karlsson , Maciej Fijalkowski , Jonathan Lemon , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Christian Brauner , Richard Cochran , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Jason Gunthorpe , John Hubbard , Jan Kara , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Pavel Begunkov , Mika Penttila , Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o , Peter Xu , Matthew Rosato , "Paul E . McKenney" , Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] mm/gup: disallow GUP writing to file-backed mappings by default Message-ID: <69c4a74f-18bc-4efe-89ac-a7ddf8f8d0a1@lucifer.local> References: <6e96358e-bcb5-cc36-18c3-ec5153867b9a@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e96358e-bcb5-cc36-18c3-ec5153867b9a@redhat.com> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:21:21PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.05.23 23:27, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > Writing to file-backed mappings which require folio dirty tracking using > > GUP is a fundamentally broken operation, as kernel write access to GUP > > mappings do not adhere to the semantics expected by a file system. > > > > A GUP caller uses the direct mapping to access the folio, which does not > > cause write notify to trigger, nor does it enforce that the caller marks > > the folio dirty. > > > > The problem arises when, after an initial write to the folio, writeback > > results in the folio being cleaned and then the caller, via the GUP > > interface, writes to the folio again. > > > > As a result of the use of this secondary, direct, mapping to the folio no > > write notify will occur, and if the caller does mark the folio dirty, this > > will be done so unexpectedly. > > > > For example, consider the following scenario:- > > > > 1. A folio is written to via GUP which write-faults the memory, notifying > > the file system and dirtying the folio. > > 2. Later, writeback is triggered, resulting in the folio being cleaned and > > the PTE being marked read-only. > > 3. The GUP caller writes to the folio, as it is mapped read/write via the > > direct mapping. > > 4. The GUP caller, now done with the page, unpins it and sets it dirty > > (though it does not have to). > > > > This change updates both the PUP FOLL_LONGTERM slow and fast APIs. As > > pin_user_pages_fast_only() does not exist, we can rely on a slightly > > imperfect whitelisting in the PUP-fast case and fall back to the slow case > > should this fail. > > > > > > Thanks a lot, this looks pretty good to me! Thanks! > > I started writing some selftests (assuming none would be in the works) using > iouring and and the gup_tests interface. So far, no real surprises for the general > GUP interaction [1]. > Nice! I was using the cow selftests as just looking for something that touches FOLL_LONGTERM with PUP_fast, I hacked it so it always wrote just to test patches but clearly we need something more thorough. > > There are two things I noticed when registering an iouring fixed buffer (that differ > now from generic gup_test usage): > > > (1) Registering a fixed buffer targeting an unsupported MAP_SHARED FS file now fails with > EFAULT (from pin_user_pages()) instead of EOPNOTSUPP (from io_pin_pages()). > > The man page for io_uring_register documents: > > EOPNOTSUPP > User buffers point to file-backed memory. > > ... we'd have to do some kind of errno translation in io_pin_pages(). But the > translation is not simple (sometimes we want to forward EOPNOTSUPP). That also > applies once we remove that special-casing in io_uring code. > > ... maybe we can simply update the manpage (stating that older kernels returned > EOPNOTSUPP) and start returning EFAULT? Yeah I noticed this discrepancy when going through initial attempts to refactor in the vmas patch series, I wonder how important it is to differentiate? I have a feeling it probably doesn't matter too much but obviously need input from Jens and Pavel. > > > (2) Registering a fixed buffer targeting a MAP_PRIVATE FS file fails with EOPNOTSUPP > (from io_pin_pages()). As discussed, there is nothing wrong with pinning all-anon > pages (resulting from breaking COW). > > That could be easily be handled (allow any !VM_MAYSHARE), and would automatically be > handled once removing the iouring special-casing. The entire intent of this series (for me :)) was to allow io_uring to just drop this code altogether so we can unblock my drop the 'vmas' parameter from GUP series [1]. I always intended to respin that after this settled down, Jens and Pavel seemed onboard with this (and really they shouldn't need to be doing that check, that was always a failing in GUP). I will do a v5 of this soon. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1681831798.git.lstoakes@gmail.com/ > > > [1] > > # ./pin_longterm > # [INFO] detected hugetlb size: 2048 KiB > # [INFO] detected hugetlb size: 1048576 KiB > TAP version 13 > 1..50 > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd > ok 1 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 2 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 3 Pinning failed as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 4 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 5 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd > ok 6 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 7 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 8 Pinning failed as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 9 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 10 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd > ok 11 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 12 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 13 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 14 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 15 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd > ok 16 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 17 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 18 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 19 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 20 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd > ok 21 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 22 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 23 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 24 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 25 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd > ok 26 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 27 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 28 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 29 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 30 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd > ok 31 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 32 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 33 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 34 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 35 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd > ok 36 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 37 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 38 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 39 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] R/O longterm GUP-fast pin in MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 40 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd > ok 41 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 42 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile > ok 43 Pinning failed as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 44 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 45 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd > ok 46 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with tmpfile > ok 47 Pinning succeeded as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with local tmpfile > not ok 48 Pinning failed as expected > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB) > ok 49 # SKIP need more free huge pages > # [RUN] iouring fixed buffer with MAP_PRIVATE file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (1048576 kB) > ok 50 Pinning succeeded as expected > Bail out! 1 out of 50 tests failed > # Totals: pass:39 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:10 error:0 > > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb >