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;
Message-ID: <c8f513ab-1258-d5aa-e0e6-5cf68f5223a9@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2023 09:36:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/uffd: Detect pgtable allocation failures
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20230104225207.1066932-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20230104225207.1066932-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <AF984D5D-DC66-4FD3-A749-5AF6B7289E0D@gmail.com>
 <cc6e17ad-1afd-5c52-a06e-1d89d1978368@redhat.com>
 <B38AB79D-51D7-4F1A-A5CB-A60A46A3E27F@gmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <B38AB79D-51D7-4F1A-A5CB-A60A46A3E27F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 05.01.23 19:01, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 5, 2023, at 12:59 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 05.01.23 04:10, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> On Jan 4, 2023, at 2:52 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Before this patch, when there's any pgtable allocation issues happened
>>>> during change_protection(), the error will be ignored from the syscall.
>>>> For shmem, there will be an error dumped into the host dmesg.  Two issues
>>>> with that:
>>>>
>>>>   (1) Doing a trace dump when allocation fails is not anything close to
>>>>       grace..
>>>>
>>>>   (2) The user should be notified with any kind of such error, so the user
>>>>       can trap it and decide what to do next, either by retrying, or stop
>>>>       the process properly, or anything else.
>>>>
>>>> For userfault users, this will change the API of UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT when
>>>> pgtable allocation failure happened.  It should not normally break anyone,
>>>> though.  If it breaks, then in good ways.
>>>>
>>>> One man-page update will be on the way to introduce the new -ENOMEM for
>>>> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT.  Not marking stable so we keep the old behavior on the
>>>> 5.19-till-now kernels.
>>> I understand that the current assumption is that change_protection() should
>>> fully succeed or fail, and I guess this is the current behavior.
>>> However, to be more “future-proof” perhaps this needs to be revisited.
>>> For instance, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT can benefit from the ability to (based on
>>> userspace request) prevent write-protection of pages that are pinned. This is
>>> necessary to allow userspace uffd monitor to avoid write-protection of
>>> O_DIRECT’d memory, for instance, that might change even if a uffd monitor
>>> considers it write-protected.
>>
>> Just a note that this is pretty tricky IMHO, because:
>>
>> a) We cannot distinguished "pinned readable" from "pinned writable"
>> b) We can have false positives ("pinned") even for compound pages due to
>>    concurrent GUP-fast.
>> c) Synchronizing against GUP-fast is pretty tricky ... as we learned.
>>    Concurrent pinning is usually problematic.
>> d) O_DIRECT still uses FOLL_GET and we cannot identify that. (at least
>>    that should be figured out at one point)
> 
> My prototype used the page-count IIRC, so it had false-positives (but

I suspect GUP-fast is still problematic, I might be wrong.

> addressed O_DIRECT). And yes, precise refinement is complicated. However,
> if you need to uffd-wp memory, then without such a mechanism you need to
> ensure no kerenl/DMA write to these pages is possible. The only other
> option I can think of is interposing/seccomp on a variety of syscalls,
> to prevent uffd-wp of such memory.

The whole thing reminds me of MADV_DONTNEED+pinning: an application 
shouldn't do it, because you can only get it wrong :) I know, that's a 
bad answer.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb