Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: add functions folio_in_range() and folio_within_vma()

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 02/08/2023 15:14, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2023 10:08 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 02/08/2023 14:46, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2023 9:09 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/2023 13:50, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/2023 7:14 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 08:09, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>>>>>>> It will be used to check whether the folio is mapped to specific
>>>>>>> VMA and whether the mapping address of folio is in the range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also a helper function folio_within_vma() to check whether folio
>>>>>>> is in the range of vma based on folio_in_range().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  mm/internal.h | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> index 5a03bc4782a2..63de32154a48 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> @@ -585,6 +585,75 @@ extern long faultin_vma_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>>  				   bool write, int *locked);
>>>>>>>  extern bool mlock_future_ok(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long flags,
>>>>>>>  			       unsigned long bytes);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * Check whether the folio is in specific range
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * First, check whether the folio is in the range of vma.
>>>>>>> + * Then, check whether the folio is mapped to the range of [start, end].
>>>>>>> + * In the end, check whether the folio is fully mapped to the range.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * @pte page table pointer will be checked whether the large folio
>>>>>>> + *      is fully mapped to. Currently, if mremap in the middle of
>>>>>>> + *      large folio, the large folio could be mapped to to different
>>>>>>> + *      VMA and address check can't identify this situation.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +static inline bool
>>>>>>> +folio_in_range(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>> +		unsigned long start, unsigned long end, pte_t *pte)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This api seems a bit redundant to me. Wouldn't it be better to remove the vma
>>>>>> parameter and instead fix up the start/end addresses in folio_within_vma()?
>>>>> My understanding is it's necessary. As for madvise, we need to check whether
>>>>> the folio is both in the range of VMA and also in the range of [start, end).
>>>>
>>>> But in folio_within_vma() you pass start as vma->vm_start and end as
>>>> vma->vm_end. And in this function, you narrow start/end to be completely
>>>> contained in vma. So surely there is only really one start/end you are
>>>> interested in? Just seems a bit odd to me.
>>> madvise() will call filio_in_range() with VMA and real range [start, end) passed
>>> from user space.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	pte_t ptent;
>>>>>>> +	unsigned long i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>>>>>>> +	pgoff_t pgoff, addr;
>>>>>>> +	unsigned long vma_pglen = (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_ksm(folio), folio);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if (start < vma->vm_start)
>>>>>>> +		start = vma->vm_start;
>>>>>>> +	if (end > vma->vm_end)
>>>>>>> +		end = vma->vm_end;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	pgoff = folio_pgoff(folio);
>>>>>>> +	/* if folio start address is not in vma range */
>>>>>>> +	if (pgoff < vma->vm_pgoff || pgoff > vma->vm_pgoff + vma_pglen)
>>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	addr = vma->vm_start + ((pgoff - vma->vm_pgoff) << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>>>>> +	if (addr < start || end - addr < folio_size(folio))
>>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	/* not necessary to check pte for none large folio */
>>>>>>> +	if (!folio_test_large(folio))
>>>>>>> +		return true;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	if (!pte)
>>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	/* check whether parameter pte is associated with folio */
>>>>>>> +	ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>>>>>>> +	if (pte_none(ptent) || !pte_present(ptent) ||
>>>>>>> +			pte_pfn(ptent) - folio_pfn(folio) >= nr)
>>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	pte -= pte_pfn(ptent) - folio_pfn(folio);
>>>>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++, pte++) {
>>>>>>> +		ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +		if (pte_none(ptent) || !pte_present(ptent) ||
>>>>>>> +				pte_pfn(ptent) - folio_pfn(folio) >= nr)
>>>>>>> +			return false;
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think I see anything to ensure you don't wander off the end (or start)
>>>>>> of the pgtable? If the folio is mremapped so that it straddles multiple tables
>>>>>> (or is bigger than a single table?) then I think pte can become invalid? Perhaps
>>>>>> you intended start/end to always be within the same pgtable, but that is not
>>>>>> guarranteed in the case that folio_within_vma() is making the call.
>>>>> If pte is invalid for any reason (pass wrong parameter, not fully mapped etc), this
>>>>> function just return false in page table entry check phase.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I don't think this covers the issue I'm describing. If you have a
>>>> pte-mapped THP that gets mremapped to straddle 2 pte tables, don't you have a
>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>>> example for 4K base page set up:
>>>>
>>>> folio_nr_pages = 512
>>>> first page of folio mapped at vaddr = 2M - 4K = 0x1FF000
>>>>
>>>> If you then call this function with the pte pointer for the second page in the
>>>> folio, which is mapped at address 0x200000, that pte is pointing to the first
>>>> pte entry in the table pointed to by the second pmd entry. The pte pointer can
>>>> be legitimately manipulated to point to any entry within that table,
>>>> corrsponding to vaddrs [0x200000, 0x400000). But you will end up subtracting 1
>>>> from the pointer, intending that it now points to the pte entry that represents
>>>> vaddr 0x1FF000. But actually it has fallen off the front of the table into some
>>>> other arbitrary memory in the linear map. 0x1FF000 is represented in a different
>>>> table, pointed to by the first pmd entry.
>>> Yes. This can be an issue as hold the second page table lock can't prevent the first
>>> part unmapped. Let me add another check vaddr align to folio_size in next version. 
>>
>> Locking is a problem but its not the only problem. The 2 tables are almost
>> certainly not contiguous in virtual memory. So once you have moved the pointer
>> to before the start of the second table, then you are pointing to arbitrary memory.
> If vaddr is aligned to folio_size, suppose we are OK here (I have assumption that
> large folio will not be larger than PMD size. Or it's possible on ARM platform?).

I *think* your assumption that a folio will never be bigger than PMD size is ok.
(I'm guessing page cache never allocates bigger folios than that?).

But its a bad assumption to assume folios are always mapped in a naturally
aligned manner. mremapping a thp will cause non-natural alignment. User space
requesting a file (that is in a large folio in pagecache) to be mapped to
arbitrary (page-aligned) address will do that.

> 
> 
> Regards
> Yin, Fengwei
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Yin, Fengwei
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I want to check that this function is definitely always called under the
>>>>>> PTL for the table that pte belongs to?
>>>>> Yes. I should spell it out. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Yin, Fengwei
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +	return true;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static inline bool
>>>>>>> +folio_within_vma(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t *pte)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	return folio_in_range(folio, vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, pte);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>  /*
>>>>>>>   * mlock_vma_folio() and munlock_vma_folio():
>>>>>>>   * should be called with vma's mmap_lock held for read or write,
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>