2022-10-21 17:19:42

by James Houghton

Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 01/47] hugetlb: don't set PageUptodate for UFFDIO_CONTINUE

This is how it should have been to begin with. It would be very bad if
we actually set PageUptodate with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE, as UFFDIO_CONTINUE
doesn't actually set/update the contents of the page, so we would be
exposing a non-zeroed page to the user.

The reason this change is being made now is because UFFDIO_CONTINUEs on
subpages definitely shouldn't set this page flag on the head page.

Signed-off-by: James Houghton <[email protected]>
---
mm/hugetlb.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 1a7dc7b2e16c..650761cdd2f6 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -6097,7 +6097,10 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
* preceding stores to the page contents become visible before
* the set_pte_at() write.
*/
- __SetPageUptodate(page);
+ if (!is_continue)
+ __SetPageUptodate(page);
+ else
+ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageUptodate(page), page);

/* Add shared, newly allocated pages to the page cache. */
if (vm_shared && !is_continue) {
--
2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog

2022-11-16 16:51:31

by Peter Xu

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/47] hugetlb: don't set PageUptodate for UFFDIO_CONTINUE

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:36:17PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> This is how it should have been to begin with. It would be very bad if
> we actually set PageUptodate with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE, as UFFDIO_CONTINUE
> doesn't actually set/update the contents of the page, so we would be
> exposing a non-zeroed page to the user.
>
> The reason this change is being made now is because UFFDIO_CONTINUEs on
> subpages definitely shouldn't set this page flag on the head page.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 1a7dc7b2e16c..650761cdd2f6 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -6097,7 +6097,10 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> * preceding stores to the page contents become visible before
> * the set_pte_at() write.
> */
> - __SetPageUptodate(page);
> + if (!is_continue)
> + __SetPageUptodate(page);
> + else
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageUptodate(page), page);

Yeah the old code looks wrong, I'm just wondering whether we can 100%
guarantee this for hugetlb. E.g. for shmem that won't hold when we
uffd-continue on a not used page (e.g. by an over-sized fallocate()).

Another safer approach is simply fail the ioctl if !uptodate, but if you're
certain then WARN_ON_ONCE sounds all good too. At least I did have a quick
look on hugetlb fallocate() and pages will be uptodate immediately.

>
> /* Add shared, newly allocated pages to the page cache. */
> if (vm_shared && !is_continue) {
> --
> 2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog
>
>

--
Peter Xu

2022-11-21 18:42:56

by James Houghton

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/47] hugetlb: don't set PageUptodate for UFFDIO_CONTINUE

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:30 AM Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:36:17PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > This is how it should have been to begin with. It would be very bad if
> > we actually set PageUptodate with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE, as UFFDIO_CONTINUE
> > doesn't actually set/update the contents of the page, so we would be
> > exposing a non-zeroed page to the user.
> >
> > The reason this change is being made now is because UFFDIO_CONTINUEs on
> > subpages definitely shouldn't set this page flag on the head page.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: James Houghton <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mm/hugetlb.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 1a7dc7b2e16c..650761cdd2f6 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -6097,7 +6097,10 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> > * preceding stores to the page contents become visible before
> > * the set_pte_at() write.
> > */
> > - __SetPageUptodate(page);
> > + if (!is_continue)
> > + __SetPageUptodate(page);
> > + else
> > + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageUptodate(page), page);
>
> Yeah the old code looks wrong, I'm just wondering whether we can 100%
> guarantee this for hugetlb. E.g. for shmem that won't hold when we
> uffd-continue on a not used page (e.g. by an over-sized fallocate()).
>
> Another safer approach is simply fail the ioctl if !uptodate, but if you're
> certain then WARN_ON_ONCE sounds all good too. At least I did have a quick
> look on hugetlb fallocate() and pages will be uptodate immediately.

Failing the ioctl sounds better than only WARNing. I'll do that and
drop the WARN_ON_ONCE for v1. Thanks!

- James

>
> >
> > /* Add shared, newly allocated pages to the page cache. */
> > if (vm_shared && !is_continue) {
> > --
> > 2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog
> >
> >
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>

2022-12-08 23:17:25

by Mike Kravetz

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/47] hugetlb: don't set PageUptodate for UFFDIO_CONTINUE

On 11/21/22 10:33, James Houghton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:30 AM Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:36:17PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > > This is how it should have been to begin with. It would be very bad if
> > > we actually set PageUptodate with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE, as UFFDIO_CONTINUE
> > > doesn't actually set/update the contents of the page, so we would be
> > > exposing a non-zeroed page to the user.
> > >
> > > The reason this change is being made now is because UFFDIO_CONTINUEs on
> > > subpages definitely shouldn't set this page flag on the head page.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: James Houghton <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > mm/hugetlb.c | 5 ++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index 1a7dc7b2e16c..650761cdd2f6 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -6097,7 +6097,10 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> > > * preceding stores to the page contents become visible before
> > > * the set_pte_at() write.
> > > */
> > > - __SetPageUptodate(page);
> > > + if (!is_continue)
> > > + __SetPageUptodate(page);
> > > + else
> > > + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageUptodate(page), page);
> >
> > Yeah the old code looks wrong, I'm just wondering whether we can 100%
> > guarantee this for hugetlb. E.g. for shmem that won't hold when we
> > uffd-continue on a not used page (e.g. by an over-sized fallocate()).
> >
> > Another safer approach is simply fail the ioctl if !uptodate, but if you're
> > certain then WARN_ON_ONCE sounds all good too. At least I did have a quick
> > look on hugetlb fallocate() and pages will be uptodate immediately.
>
> Failing the ioctl sounds better than only WARNing. I'll do that and
> drop the WARN_ON_ONCE for v1. Thanks!
>

Sorry for the VERY late reply ...

After checking all the code paths, I do not think it is possible for a
!PageUptodate to be in the cache (target of continue).

ACK to failing the ioctl if not set, although I don't think it is possible
in current code.
--
Mike Kravetz