Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <9101f70c-0c0a-845b-4ab7-82edf71c7bac@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:15:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
        aarcange@redhat.com, lokeshgidra@google.com, peterx@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, axelrasmussen@google.com,
        rppt@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
        zhangpeng362@huawei.com, bgeffon@google.com,
        kaleshsingh@google.com, ngeoffray@google.com, jdduke@google.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
References: <20230923013148.1390521-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230923013148.1390521-3-surenb@google.com>
 <CAG48ez1N2kryy08eo0dcJ5a9O-3xMT8aOrgrcD+CqBN=cBfdDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <03f95e90-82bd-6ee2-7c0d-d4dc5d3e15ee@redhat.com>
 <CAJuCfpHf6BWaf_k5dBx7mAz49kF5BwBhW_mUxu4E_p2iAy9-iA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHf6BWaf_k5dBx7mAz49kF5BwBhW_mUxu4E_p2iAy9-iA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27.09.23 20:25, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> I have some cleanups pending for page_move_anon_rmap(), that moves the
>> SetPageAnonExclusive hunk out. Here we should be using
>> page_move_anon_rmap() [or rather, folio_move_anon_rmap() after my cleanups]
>>
>> I'll send them out soonish.
> 
> Should I keep this as is in my next version until you post the
> cleanups? I can add a TODO comment to convert it to
> folio_move_anon_rmap() once it's ready.

You should just be able to use page_move_anon_rmap() and whatever gets 
in first cleans it up :)

> 
>>
>>>> +       WRITE_ONCE(src_folio->index, linear_page_index(dst_vma,
>>>> +                                                     dst_addr)); >> +
>>>> +       orig_src_pte = ptep_clear_flush(src_vma, src_addr, src_pte);
>>>> +       orig_dst_pte = mk_pte(&src_folio->page, dst_vma->vm_page_prot);
>>>> +       orig_dst_pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(orig_dst_pte),
>>>> +                                    dst_vma);
>>>
>>> I think there's still a theoretical issue here that you could fix by
>>> checking for the AnonExclusive flag, similar to the huge page case.
>>>
>>> Consider the following scenario:
>>>
>>> 1. process P1 does a write fault in a private anonymous VMA, creating
>>> and mapping a new anonymous page A1
>>> 2. process P1 forks and creates two children P2 and P3. afterwards, A1
>>> is mapped in P1, P2 and P3 as a COW page, with mapcount 3.
>>> 3. process P1 removes its mapping of A1, dropping its mapcount to 2.
>>> 4. process P2 uses vmsplice() to grab a reference to A1 with get_user_pages()
>>> 5. process P2 removes its mapping of A1, dropping its mapcount to 1.
>>>
>>> If at this point P3 does a write fault on its mapping of A1, it will
>>> still trigger copy-on-write thanks to the AnonExclusive mechanism; and
>>> this is necessary to avoid P3 mapping A1 as writable and writing data
>>> into it that will become visible to P2, if P2 and P3 are in different
>>> security contexts.
>>>
>>> But if P3 instead moves its mapping of A1 to another address with
>>> remap_anon_pte() which only does a page mapcount check, the
>>> maybe_mkwrite() will directly make the mapping writable, circumventing
>>> the AnonExclusive mechanism.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, can_change_pte_writable() contains the exact logic when we can turn
>> something easily writable even if it wasn't writable before. which
>> includes that PageAnonExclusive is set. (but with uffd-wp or softdirty
>> tracking, there is more to consider)
> 
> For uffd_remap can_change_pte_writable() would fail it VM_WRITE is not
> set, but we want remapping to work for RO memory as well. Are you

In a VMA without VM_WRITE you certainly wouldn't want to make PTEs 
writable :) That's why that function just does a sanity check that it is 
not called in strange context. So one would only call it if VM_WRITE is set.

> saying that a PageAnonExclusive() check alone would not be enough
> here?

There are some interesting questions to ask here:

1) What happens if the old VMA has VM_SOFTDIRTY set but the new one not? 
You most probably have to mark the PTE softdirty and not make it writable.

2) VM_UFFD_WP requires similar care I assume? Peter might know.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb