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: <CAHk-=wh5p6zpgUUoY+O7e74X9BZyODhnsqvv=xqnTaLRNj3d_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YSk7xfcHVc7CxtQO@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <CAHk-=wjMyZLH+ta5SohAViSc10iPj-hRnHc-KPDoj1XZCmxdBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YSk+9cTMYi2+BFW7@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YSldx9uhMYhT/G8X@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <YSqOUb7yZ7kBoKRY@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YS40qqmXL7CMFLGq@arm.com>
 <YS5KudP4DBwlbPEp@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YWR2cPKeDrc0uHTK@arm.com>
 <CAHk-=wjvQWj7mvdrgTedUW50c2fkdn6Hzxtsk-=ckkMrFoTXjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWSnvq58jDsDuIik@arm.com> <CAHk-=wiNWOY5QW5ZJukt_9pHTWvrJhE2=DxPpEtFHAWdzOPDTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiNWOY5QW5ZJukt_9pHTWvrJhE2=DxPpEtFHAWdzOPDTg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 02:46:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU7bpjAxP+4dfE-C0pzzQJN1p=C2j3vyXwUwf7fF9JF72w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][arm64] possible infinite loop in btrfs search_ioctl()
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:59 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_MTE
> > +#define FAULT_GRANULE_SIZE     (16)
> > +#define FAULT_GRANULE_MASK     (~(FAULT_GRANULE_SIZE-1))
>
> [...]
>
> > If this looks in the right direction, I'll do some proper patches
> > tomorrow.
>
> Looks fine to me. It's going to be quite expensive and bad for caches, though.
>
> That said, fault_in_writable() is _supposed_ to all be for the slow
> path when things go south and the normal path didn't work out, so I
> think it's fine.

Let me get back to this; I'm actually not convinced that we need to
worry about sub-page-size fault granules in fault_in_pages_readable or
fault_in_pages_writeable.

From a filesystem point of view, we can get into trouble when a
user-space read or write triggers a page fault while we're holding
filesystem locks, and that page fault ends up calling back into the
filesystem. To deal with that, we're performing those user-space
accesses with page faults disabled. When a page fault would occur, we
get back an error instead, and then we try to fault in the offending
pages. If a page is resident and we still get a fault trying to access
it, trying to fault in the same page again isn't going to help and we
have a true error. We're clearly looking at memory at a page
granularity; faults at a sub-page level don't matter at this level of
abstraction (but they do show similar error behavior). To avoid
getting stuck, when it gets a short result or -EFAULT, the filesystem
implements the following backoff strategy: first, it tries to fault in
a number of pages. When the read or write still doesn't make progress,
it scales back and faults in a single page. Finally, when that still
doesn't help, it gives up. This strategy is needed for actual page
faults, but it also handles sub-page faults appropriately as long as
the user-space access functions give sensible results.

What am I missing?

Thanks,
Andreas

> I do wonder how the sub-page granularity works. Is it sufficient to
> just read from it? Because then a _slightly_ better option might be to
> do one write per page (to catch page table writability) and then one
> read per "granule" (to catch pointer coloring or cache poisoning
> issues)?
>
> That said, since this is all preparatory to us wanting to write to it
> eventually anyway, maybe marking it all dirty in the caches is only
> good.
>
>                 Linus
>