Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:5bc5:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id os5csp2004632pxb; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU9c92KZ7VPOXlpepM896Nf86aVsgMrv7ajLbjqfJjLz9yCZtFrqUsIBxPZ5DTCoSx5KFN X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9bc1:: with SMTP id b1mr3027434pjw.49.1635456150122; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:22:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1635456150; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ZSQ8opGjP1MKPfKd+9EE+ChTLWQc0eWFjSdlUfieDMQ3EG5FAsR6NfyRanTc5aso1u TAf8H5TIhxcQk8Fv7NmDYSGUXRUtJ27b1MGDWYMU54sLwe90AgvlzUOU5R+032Lkz9Qa 7qvAf1DqCTq0tPKKbMblnpdW/RFuOYjDKGoIftxPd6mp6pMDtEuw9tW9vSIikJgxsBvd TuGA3rA7MgGfNm2BxyxjfkfMi/t4seo2/TEaCGZS4rpZMntJndSNloM/tsPH7hCxtqJQ iB5cmGARGJ5SgSk1lCbF5lQnuJKn9klvLn5KmIWuuCnoEm8QNAbPog768ZScDTuyq6cK WgmQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=tyxPmynJu1iK1PdCIItR1Oq7/aRZG9lDK3X3SVMo0y4=; b=urlBhsIvyPcKQOEkdd65tFw8ZCQokDdfisfHzvheuJx2lKr48NnwmQX9SqKuGMdGHx LJWmO4WusvDdJVq/y6jraZl+wVqynifYQ6af+wWUE1szsE+WWqActycCZtgr5Jn9eEVx /ii0bF1mqb5qoAxJSWU/eZs8xQpHkM3UGcpVnf6ge8VHi9TmtMxuz+TBbra/gj211yK/ UCHKm2XyJICGLds7Pr+dwqkG2fCivcBOMm5M5Y18RrPCtC4dMAZ0N7gqgXKagfHNKZ7j hUR3z3+lizwfJnFE+emyl51PlgDEmwOXkTUwL8P8BUsDedD9csbvFn68hKbxvvOtwHWv fMPw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b1si9703757pjq.167.2021.10.28.14.22.14; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:22:30 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231332AbhJ1VX1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:23:27 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47886 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230404AbhJ1VXZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:23:25 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBF7A6023E; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 21:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:20:52 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Paul Mackerras , Alexander Viro , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , Jan Kara , Matthew Wilcox , cluster-devel , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/17] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org One last try on this path before I switch to the other options. On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:14:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:13 PM Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > As an alternative, you mentioned earlier that a per-thread fault status > > was not feasible on x86 due to races. Was this only for the hw poison > > case? I think the uaccess is slightly different. > > It's not x86-specific, it's very generic. > > If we set some flag in the per-thread status, we'll need to be careful > about not overwriting it if we then have a subsequent NMI that _also_ > takes a (completely unrelated) page fault - before we then read the > per-thread flag. > > Think 'perf' and fetching backtraces etc. > > Note that the NMI page fault can easily also be a pointer coloring > fault on arm64, for exactly the same reason that whatever original > copy_from_user() code was. So this is not a "oh, pointer coloring > faults are different". They have the same re-entrancy issue. > > And both the "pagefault_disable" and "fault happens in interrupt > context" cases are also the exact same 'faulthandler_disabled()' > thing. So even at fault time they look very similar. They do look fairly similar but we should have the information in the fault handler to distinguish: not a page fault (pte permission or p*d translation), in_task(), user address, fixup handler. But I agree the logic looks fragile. I think for nested contexts we can save the uaccess fault state on exception entry, restore it on return. Or (needs some thinking on atomicity) save it in a local variable. The high-level API would look something like: unsigned long uaccess_flags; /* we could use TIF_ flags */ uaccess_flags = begin_retriable_uaccess(); copied = copy_page_from_iter_atomic(...); retry = end_retriable_uaccess(uaccess_flags); ... if (!retry) break; I think we'd need a TIF flag to mark the retriable region and another to track whether a non-recoverable fault occurred. It needs prototyping. Anyway, if you don't like this approach, I'll look at error codes being returned but rather than changing all copy_from_user() etc., introduce a new API that returns different error codes depending on the fault (e.g -EFAULT vs -EACCES). We already have copy_from_user_nofault(), we'd need something for the iov_iter stuff to use in the fs code. -- Catalin