Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:17:30 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/23] mm/shmem: Handle uffd-wp special pte in page
 fault handler
Message-ID: <YbrZ+p8MPLdk/Lvi@xz-m1.local>
References: <20211115075522.73795-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20211115075522.73795-7-peterx@redhat.com>
 <6587740.tPqSsf18xI@nvdebian>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6587740.tPqSsf18xI@nvdebian>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:56:42PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:05 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index d5966d9e24c3..e8557d43a87d 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -3452,6 +3452,43 @@ static vm_fault_t remove_device_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static vm_fault_t pte_marker_clear(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +{
> > +	vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
> > +				       vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Be careful so that we will only recover a special uffd-wp pte into a
> > +	 * none pte.  Otherwise it means the pte could have changed, so retry.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (is_pte_marker(*vmf->pte))
> > +		pte_clear(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> > +	pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This is actually a page-missing access, but with uffd-wp special pte
> > + * installed.  It means this pte was wr-protected before being unmapped.
> > + */
> > +static vm_fault_t pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +{
> > +	/* Careful!  vmf->pte unmapped after return */
> > +	if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
> 
> Hasn't vmf->pte already been unmapped by do_swap_page() by the time we get
> here?

Great catch, thanks!

It was needed before with the "swap special pte" version because that was
handled outside do_swap_page().  After the rebase I forgot to remove it.

I believe it didn't crash simply because we've got commit 2ca99358671a ("mm:
clear vmf->pte after pte_unmap_same() returns", 2021-11-06) very recently so it
just became a safe no-op, so all things will still work.

I'll drop it.

> 
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Just in case there're leftover special ptes even after the region
> > +	 * got unregistered - we can simply clear them.  We can also do that
> > +	 * proactively when e.g. when we do UFFDIO_UNREGISTER upon some uffd-wp
> > +	 * ranges, but it should be more efficient to be done lazily here.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (unlikely(!userfaultfd_wp(vmf->vma) || vma_is_anonymous(vmf->vma)))
> > +		return pte_marker_clear(vmf);
> > +
> > +	/* do_fault() can handle pte markers too like none pte */
> > +	return do_fault(vmf);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static vm_fault_t handle_pte_marker(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >  {
> >  	swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> > @@ -3465,8 +3502,11 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_marker(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vma_is_anonymous(vmf->vma) || !marker))
> >  		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> >  
> > -	/* TODO: handle pte markers */
> > -	return 0;
> > +	if (marker & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP)
> 
> Can we make this check `marker == PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP`? There is currently only
> one user of pte markers, and from what I can tell pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp()
> wouldn't do the correct thing if other users were added because it could clear
> non-uffd-wp markers. I don't think it's worth making it do the right thing now,
> but a comment noting that would be helpful.

Sure thing, and yeah I agree it's trivial and shouldn't matter in real-life.

I'll change it to "marker == PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP" as you suggested, so if
there's surprise we'll get a sigbus.

Thanks,

> 
> > +		return pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp(vmf);
> > +
> > +	/* This is an unknown pte marker */
> > +	return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> >  }

-- 
Peter Xu