Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210816065417.3987596-1-chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
 <20210816182750.26i535ilc6nef5k6@offworld> <874kbpp5zd.ffs@tglx>
 <CAAhV-H5TKLMi0GSQmh9RFK_k5eNRwx8AE8MjMKjJfbnyVYP-+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <871r6spn0r.ffs@tglx> <CAAhV-H6=MbBFwgxT75Bqr5SY0e5E6gtpCUCZhrVgFE_h1A0q2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87y290o304.ffs@tglx> <YRuFMbUi7ZN315dY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YRuFMbUi7ZN315dY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:27:03 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAhV-H4GVWw0eNYRWmGY66A6FVKcexAGr-Wh_=9VgxxEkpiKJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Fix fault_in_user_writeable()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@loongson.cn>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi, all,

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:45 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:05:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Huacai,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 17 2021 at 15:38, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On X86, it returns 0; on MIPS64 without patch, it hangs in kernel; on
> > > MIPS64 with this patch, it returns -1.
> >
> > As expected.
> >
> > > Then, I want to know, on "W implies R" archs (such as X86), should it
> > > return 0? Maybe return -1 is more reasonable? (because the VMA is
> > > marked as write-only). If this program should return -1, then I don't
> > > think this is a MIPS-specific problem.
> >
> > No. mmap(.., PROT_WRITE...) is simply impossible on x86 and implies
> > PROT_READ as documented in mmap(2).
> >
> > So why should this fail and only fail in the fault case, but succeed
> > when the PTE is already established?
>
> I wouldn't actually mind if it failed on fault -- it's the 'best' we can
> do on x86. Doing a RmW op on PROT_WRITE is silly and deserves all the
> wreckage it can get.
If we must fix it in arch code, there are two methods: 1, don't use
write-only map (modify protection_map as Liu Lichao did); 2, override
arch_vma_access_permitted() to do extra checks. Thomas, which is
better?

Huacai