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: <c762297d-5c65-f20a-4c11-90d2f966c675@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 22:57:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: Fix uffd wr-protection for CoW
 optimization path
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230324142620.2344140-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20230324222707.GA3046@monkey>
 <8a06be33-1b44-b992-f80a-8764810ebf3f@redhat.com> <ZCBavqZE2cyVOzaW@x1n>
 <20230327183438.GC4184@monkey>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20230327183438.GC4184@monkey>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27.03.23 20:34, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 03/26/23 10:46, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:36:53PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> @@ -5487,6 +5487,17 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>    	unsigned long haddr = address & huge_page_mask(h);
>>>>>    	struct mmu_notifier_range range;
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * Never handle CoW for uffd-wp protected pages.  It should be only
>>>>> +	 * handled when the uffd-wp protection is removed.
>>>>> +	 *
>>>>> +	 * Note that only the CoW optimization path (in hugetlb_no_page())
>>>>> +	 * can trigger this, because hugetlb_fault() will always resolve
>>>>> +	 * uffd-wp bit first.
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	if (!unshare && huge_pte_uffd_wp(pte))
>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>
>>>> This looks correct.  However, since the previous version looked correct I must
>>>> ask.  Can we have unshare set and huge_pte_uffd_wp true?  If so, then it seems
>>>> we would need to possibly propogate that uffd_wp to the new pte as in v2
>>
>> Good point, thanks for spotting!
>>
>>>
>>> We can. A reproducer would share an anon hugetlb page because parent and
>>> child. In the parent, we would uffd-wp that page. We could trigger unsharing
>>> by R/O-pinning that page.
>>
>> Right.  This seems to be a separate bug..  It should be triggered in
>> totally different context and much harder due to rare use of RO pins,
>> meanwhile used with userfault-wp.
>>
>> If both of you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for this bug, and I'll
>> better prepare a reproducer/selftest with it.
>>
> 
> I am OK with separate patches, and agree that the R/O pinning case is less
> likely to happen.

Yes, the combination should be rather rare and we can fix that 
separately. Ideally, we'd try to mimic the same uffd code flow in 
hugetlb cow/unshare handling that we use in memory.c

> 
> Since this patch addresses the issue found by Muhammad,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>

Hopefully we didn't forget about yet another case :D

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb