Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220712130542.18836-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20220713102357.8328614813db01b569650ffd@linux-foundation.org>
 <a47922cf-eb30-1ad9-fc96-1896254564ef@huawei.com> <YtA7svbn4MtuT7qJ@xz-m1.local>
 <402ae708-4c86-8feb-75c4-9339e1deac3b@huawei.com> <YtFfHU3fb/ncCG6O@xz-m1.local>
 <CAJHvVcgFY2uXM=CkxYmHc32Vqb5qmr8vFv0dpFk-2=Ef+Kssqw@mail.gmail.com> <YtGe2qIO038e627p@xz-m1.local>
In-Reply-To: <YtGe2qIO038e627p@xz-m1.local>
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:28:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHvVcji14hUsqg=yrtevEqwMtZi7Xwyj4yUnLMaZi0DBqPTHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:07 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 09:45:37AM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > I agree we should either:
> > - Update the UFFD selftest to exercise this case
> > - Or, don't allow it, update vma_can_userfault() to also require VM_SHARED
> > for VM_UFFD_MINOR registration.
> >
> > The first one is unfortunately not completely straightforward as Peter
> > described. I would say it's probably not worth holding up this fix while we
> > wait for it to happen?
>
> Agreed, Andrew has already queued it.  It actually is a real fix since we
> never forbid the user running private mappings upon minor faults, so
> it's literally a bug in kernel irrelevant of the kselftest.
>
> >
> > I don't really have a strong preference between the two. The second option
> > is what I originally proposed in the first version of the minor fault
> > series, so going back to that isn't a problem at least from my perspective.
> > If in the future we find a real use case for this, we could always easily
> > re-enable it and add selftests for it at that point.
>
> I'd go for fixing the test case if possible.  Mike, would it be fine if we
> go back to /dev/hugepages path based approach in the test case?

One possible alternative, can we use memfd_create() with MFD_HUGE_*?
This afaict lets us have an fd so we can create two mappings,
without having to mount hugetlbfs, pass in a path to the test, ...

>
>
> Thanks,

>
> --
> Peter Xu
>