Message-ID: <17bfb2fd-da51-1264-513f-f9e928ec36c6@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:42:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via
 FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE (!hugetlb)
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20211217113049.23850-1-david@redhat.com>
 <20211217113049.23850-7-david@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgL5u3XMgfUN6BOqVO0OvPx3-LEri1ju-1TW4dFhHQO4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgKft6E_EeLA1GnEXcQBA9vu8m2B-M-U7PuiNa0+9gpHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54c492d7-ddcd-dcd0-7209-efb2847adf7c@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgjOsHAXttQa=csLG10Cp2hh8Dk8CnNC3_WDpBpTzBESQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgjOsHAXttQa=csLG10Cp2hh8Dk8CnNC3_WDpBpTzBESQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17.12.21 21:36, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:18 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17.12.21 20:22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:04 AM Linus Torvalds
>>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>  - get a "readonly" copy of a local private page using FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE.
>>>
>>>    This just increments the page count, because mapcount == 1.
>>>
>>>  - fork()
>>>
>>>  - unmap in the original
>>>
>>>  - child now has "mapcount == 1" on a page again, but refcount is
>>> elevated, and child HAS TO COW before writing.
>>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> This is just GUP before fork(), which is in general
>> problematic/incompatible with sharing.
> 
> Note that my example was not meant to be an example of a problem per
> se, but purely as an example of how meaningless 'mapcount' is, and how
> 'mapcount==1' isn't really a very meaningful test.
> 
> So it wasn't mean to show "look, GUP before fork is problematic".  We
> have that problem already solved at least for regular pages.
> 
> It was purely meant to show how "mapcount==1" isn't a meaningful thing
> to test, and my worry about how you're adding that nonsensical test to
> the new code.
> 
>> Let's just take a look at what refcount does *wrong*. Let's use an
>> adjusted version of your example above, because it's a perfect fit:
>>
>> 1. mem = mmap(pagesize, MAP_PRIVATE)
>> -> refcount == 1
>>
>> 2. memset(mem, 0, pagesize); /* Page is mapped R/W */
>>
>> 3. fork() /* Page gets mapped R/O */
>> -> refcount > 1
>>
>> 4. child quits
>> -> refcount == 1
>>
>> 5. Take a R/O pin (RDMA, VFIO, ...)
>> -> refcount > 1
>>
>> 6. memset(mem, 0xff, pagesize);
>> -> Write fault -> COW
> 
> I do not believe this is actually a bug.

It's debatable if it's a BUG or not (I think it is one). It's for sure
inconsistent.

> 
> You asked for a R/O pin, and you got one.
> 
> Then somebody else modified that page, and you got exactly what you
> asked for - a COW event. The original R/O pin has the original page
> that it asked for, and can read it just fine.

Where in the code did I ask for a COW event? I asked for a R/O pin, not
any kind of memory protection.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb