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 D5458C00140 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 311F86B0071; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2C1048E0001; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 161326B0073; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BCB6B0071 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E7216068E for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:29:52 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79784673024.03.3EE0354 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEBE80186 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:29:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1660159790; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=REi4WFzUXH4cvrULW2JJO2oNqRO+KWBZyDWvXG7zfjU=; b=e+2ouxX+SbgzpwQvnb/BTBUjnyoA+m2RpjTxp6kxt8dSfXgsuBdwePNMaeUurEa4j4boOF 95EMQhJ2+WFIETM50ZI1ZWddIMKn0PRVmpp3tfOjVpL39DrFVzkGuTGJkLoaqYpf8BrtK9 7DvLAXGLWDQckfSxmhUvjh882hxbnek= Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-274-CeA7v7mcM56jMfXZXAb2bQ-1; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: CeA7v7mcM56jMfXZXAb2bQ-1 Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id v20-20020a5ec114000000b00682428f8d31so8501528iol.8 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=REi4WFzUXH4cvrULW2JJO2oNqRO+KWBZyDWvXG7zfjU=; b=RC4gY3p/GxpPBSjkRBIY3pm59bRvTuXF/+9/zUvLca/crU255swocsAY+jzR87GxeF 2EEPtqKfdeZh6uvz3C2/Wrx0RuSsFBDX5rFqCy/4gmuA9AQjFLxWdWxFfkgRc5WYZ9Ol vHyHAcTA3ZxKsCi3mrdHJYgiuxJtPDUkQouE1WXVtR5DfSscGLJNIliu50Lt84qXTgu9 wqKA3GPMZ3o0McZpqFRFLtud7jbSbdu3fnDmYv7nbPBq2EuoQrFzdx6V1jbDzm+VKAVK XAnofc7DXxegPUFUn46rW9eNONVpseqg8B1If5pMZkNFOSTnduihAOXkTfEYBiO3iTv4 vU3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo32H5b5e0Zt9aZ/Hy/rVrLFSs8JY5i29vCkj3UVhcKhhEJAWx72 VGvPYzLGQyXyagh9L5EktD3NESFNiI4Rp+Cq+YF1Aw8HVi5L/MGFUsK+FX5izGLX+AqCyzBE2uj XCy8S0cgb8II= X-Received: by 2002:a92:8748:0:b0:2d9:3f81:d0b7 with SMTP id d8-20020a928748000000b002d93f81d0b7mr12999647ilm.310.1660159786659; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6lyhiM/KFasf0ntmXLik3ApRZzHCPXsjVFzomhiVrqgorAqjUEu74Pv3h3d46ay5fyMx+G9Q== X-Received: by 2002:a92:8748:0:b0:2d9:3f81:d0b7 with SMTP id d8-20020a928748000000b002d93f81d0b7mr12999641ilm.310.1660159786473; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-m1.local (bras-base-aurron9127w-grc-35-70-27-3-10.dsl.bell.ca. [70.27.3.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m64-20020a6b3f43000000b0067cb742ad4csm2686268ioa.23.2022.08.10.12.29.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:29:44 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , Muchun Song , Peter Feiner , "Kirill A . Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/hugetlb: support write-faults in shared mappings Message-ID: References: <20220805110329.80540-1-david@redhat.com> <20220805110329.80540-3-david@redhat.com> <4f644ac5-c40b-32d4-3234-c1dac3d09f83@redhat.com> <8b317ac7-f80e-4aab-4ad1-4e19a1a0740f@redhat.com> <12c65d91-5fc0-cb2e-c415-2b3447960b43@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <12c65d91-5fc0-cb2e-c415-2b3447960b43@redhat.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660159791; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=fFNzNLMAcz9JWEhTj3dGlC2qlP4CIiThRZ1/14Oz/jFY8XcLE7mO1bmsqWFtku+zc/lIK3 LTZU1FKFC+Yj+VG1ZSaZyfOHDslftk66fZLDlsQ6SGXMPM8y0mxzebBNG1nIJldqS2HISP WnKWRJjMfWPWQcgFvfyA//z+qhkYI9s= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=e+2ouxX+; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of peterx@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=peterx@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1660159791; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=REi4WFzUXH4cvrULW2JJO2oNqRO+KWBZyDWvXG7zfjU=; b=3UoQrR/WGzOliqcnHFM5bN8Y8Zh7WBbmkXOJ97u4/NbwONFTvJuZMzy+jY/SH+W/1u6QMa xfatoUVBWPbKBtTyHSvmQGISInpTi93uukSCjUWUROK5gYABFu7MZBf9knZX6hzdzlnzqO kX2M+3Zf70VjPucDMrM0Sv4cYa5xonY= X-Stat-Signature: mc8nxif68y9bwwpxm3yxwaq6fd7hpobi X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5AEBE80186 Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=e+2ouxX+; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of peterx@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=peterx@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1660159791-211990 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 Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:37:13AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 09.08.22 00:08, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 06:25:21PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> Relying on VM_SHARED to detect MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED is > >>>>> unfortunately wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you're curious, take a look at f83a275dbc5c ("mm: account for > >>>>> MAP_SHARED mappings using VM_MAYSHARE and not VM_SHARED in hugetlbfs") > >>>>> and mmap() code. > >>>>> > >>>>> Long story short: if the file is read-only, we only have VM_MAYSHARE but > >>>>> not VM_SHARED (and consequently also not VM_MAYWRITE). > >>>> > >>>> To ask in another way: if file is RO but mapped RW (mmap() will have > >>>> VM_SHARED cleared but VM_MAYSHARE set), then if we check VM_MAYSHARE here > >>>> won't we grant write bit errornously while we shouldn't? As the user > >>>> doesn't really have write permission to the file. > >>> > >>> Thus the VM_WRITE check. :) > >>> > >>> I wonder if we should just do it cleanly and introduce the maybe_mkwrite > >>> semantics here as well. Then there is no need for additional VM_WRITE > >>> checks and hugetlb will work just like !hugetlb. > >> > >> Hmm yeah I think the VM_MAYSHARE check is correct, since we'll need to fail > >> the cases where MAYSHARE && !SHARE - we used to silently let it pass. > > > > Sorry I think this is a wrong statement I made.. IIUC we'll fail correctly > > with/without the patch on any write to hugetlb RO regions. > > > > Then I just don't see a difference on checking VM_SHARED or VM_MAYSHARE > > here, it's just that VM_MAYSHARE check should work too like VM_SHARED so I > > don't see a problem. > > > > It also means I can't think of any valid case of having VM_WRITE when > > reaching here, then the WARN_ON_ONCE() is okay but maybe also redundant. > > Using maybe_mkwrite() seems misleading to me if FOLL_FORCE not ready for > > hugetlbfs after all. > > > > The main reason we'd have it would be to scream out lout and fail > gracefully if someone would -- for example -- use it for something like > FOLL_FORCE. Having that WARN_ON_ONCE() is okay to me, but just to double check we're on the same page: why there's concern on using FOLL_FORCE? IIUC we're talking about shared mappings here, then no FOLL_FORCE possible at all? IOW, "!is_cow_mapping()" should fail in check_vma_flags() already. The other thing is I'm wondering whether patch 2 should be postponed anyway so that we can wait for a full resolution of the problem from Mike. Thanks, -- Peter Xu