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 4B68FC00140 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DF8BF8E0003; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 05:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DA8458E0001; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 05:45:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C6FB58E0003; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 05:45:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95AB8E0001 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 05:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F3DAB991 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:45:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79783201512.11.C714AF4 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334E310005B for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:45:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1660124755; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RQhjJGzBRGTZiQN80ahY4rWeodzufG2/XfFDBAk+2w4=; b=fKnXjMnbk01bol6RA3yleePY6vGrXzFwM0Mq9/tT5w9q4k4oRdr3Wymo5ZI0aXgBg1rgnd bsGe/L6zgpu/urRGaeg3rqO8a/PENy3tbxRjSjTMB29i1aLdSKfTgKr2bSp/dLQiYRyrll uCSIhh9+HPM4R98dfEkHYi0agwEtRw8= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-329-tOyednJeNsO7hE1w8RVHrg-1; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 05:45:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: tOyednJeNsO7hE1w8RVHrg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 9-20020a1c0209000000b003a53ae8015bso855572wmc.1 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 02:45:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:references:cc:to :from:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=RQhjJGzBRGTZiQN80ahY4rWeodzufG2/XfFDBAk+2w4=; b=TakOi/iW5igMzWIWDVBBz6y7oM5oXMwpfGYHxhSTuUKON7o5wP08XA7SbIDl9XwcHP hU5zaNX44FTvOVr3M1klLgWCGkHWcg6NfikmBBjWTcgY7TCjYr8JQp5Z9Jwb9h8r7+FJ EJRSEnsaplVeB5ih0zFGk1Uv2EOFfpXjV5Bz7YHSC6SXHLkvGwTj4l3WdU9mkdMKeDon Oq8TGgAtQzkJCJdgZGV1aAU4Jgm+QccJMc9Ew1kp8uSlRR0apipRQN2HzCZYVAn2QPws qlFBX7jXFWNWM/HHBqe1z0+lMhmQzSTm0zzStgD952ceUdA9b7q6pnDMSd6Nn/CVr4cV UQwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2mO7gy5EnnWZNygD2XhPqAFsQg1FZ9ZO52jtt3rCqPSXbkFV5X uKS0lmzy993mN7j7PGAJhWbs91IhAbFFpjoDFI13SKAhFZQGmH4nMlVEgj28OmSDzyqCC3MDXUN UlnNmwSw88XM= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5273:0:b0:220:5d3e:c50f with SMTP id l19-20020a5d5273000000b002205d3ec50fmr17383758wrc.291.1660124753436; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 02:45:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4EiDj3wCjMk+MyRjKRdbx4iiAltWGIB3iGfdatBmWEJl1cqk5OD1IxsBikKX7EYuzK1f+Q+g== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5273:0:b0:220:5d3e:c50f with SMTP id l19-20020a5d5273000000b002205d3ec50fmr17383745wrc.291.1660124753149; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 02:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c707:1600:a3ce:b459:ef57:7b93? (p200300cbc7071600a3ceb459ef577b93.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c707:1600:a3ce:b459:ef57:7b93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c12-20020a05600c0a4c00b003a32297598csm2139946wmq.43.2022.08.10.02.45.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Aug 2022 02:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:45:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/hugetlb: support write-faults in shared mappings From: David Hildenbrand To: Peter Xu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , Muchun Song , Peter Feiner , "Kirill A . Shutemov" 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> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <12c65d91-5fc0-cb2e-c415-2b3447960b43@redhat.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=fKnXjMnb; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660124756; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=0fAWLet8IDnR4SFSymVWDg0563ODoOHZWbMAJqtl+z5bLakSmkAPPJ7ESKI/RKaDCFAsYF ov3As4Rx9qiP+HdJhHWsP7/G9sFiaViNmnSTBaj8S4WNn/vQsRuJfRYeN+vS+4EnaDXMm3 UbLZvJT2EoxHZgRRSgvQcmFgIhvIDYM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1660124756; 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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=RQhjJGzBRGTZiQN80ahY4rWeodzufG2/XfFDBAk+2w4=; b=FPpMWMUe/9gD3xdGXJA1/6oV4HbJkxR1ex+/wk1bCKt6krAVgon7cz3daUrrPr323Ky2ej QSVsEAxHwTIrtdpfs8hemqhg7gw3Vt6UsjBYKI9sSTrPR9os3kKzABLZxuTkUHcrfj+nke SunGhqeZkD9NfeLS8bNFDzMXdrNyMqg= X-Stat-Signature: totex5kgkb7gxa6izyh1rrkcaiuqe7yn X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 334E310005B Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=fKnXjMnb; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-HE-Tag: 1660124756-625681 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 10.08.22 11:37, 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. I mean triggering a write fault without VM_WRITE on !hugetlb > works, so it would be easy to assume that it similarly simply works for > hugetlb as well. And the code most probably wouldn't even blow up > immediately :) > I propose the following change to hugetlb_wp(): diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c index a18c071c294e..b92d30d3b33b 100644 --- a/mm/hugetlb.c +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c @@ -5233,6 +5233,21 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, VM_BUG_ON(unshare && (flags & FOLL_WRITE)); VM_BUG_ON(!unshare && !(flags & FOLL_WRITE)); + /* + * hugetlb does not support FOLL_FORCE-style write faults that keep the + * PTE mapped R/O such as maybe_mkwrite() would do. + */ + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!unshare && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) + return VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV; + + /* Let's take out shared mappings first, this should be a rare event. */ + if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE)) { + if (unlikely(unshare)) + return 0; + set_huge_ptep_writable(vma, haddr, ptep); + return 0; + } + -- Thanks, David / dhildenb