Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <85e5390c-660c-ef9e-b415-00ee71bc5cbf@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:51:18 +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:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com,
        lokeshgidra@google.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> <ZRWo1daWBnwNz0/O@x1n>
 <98b21e78-a90d-8b54-3659-e9b890be094f@redhat.com> <ZRW2CBUDNks9RGQJ@x1n>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI
In-Reply-To: <ZRW2CBUDNks9RGQJ@x1n>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 28.09.23 19:21, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 07:05:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> As described as reply to v1, without fork() and KSM, the PAE bit should
>> stick around. If that's not the case, we should investigate why.
>>
>> If we ever support the post-fork case (which the comment above remap_pages()
>> excludes) we'll need good motivation why we'd want to make this
>> overly-complicated feature even more complicated.
> 
> The problem is DONTFORK is only a suggestion, but not yet restricted.  If
> someone reaches on top of some !PAE page on src it'll never gonna proceed
> and keep failing, iiuc.

Yes. It won't work if you fork() and not use DONTFORK on the src VMA. We 
should document that as a limitation.

For example, you could return an error to the user that can just call 
UFFDIO_COPY. (or to the UFFDIO_COPY from inside uffd code, but that's 
probably ugly as well).

> 
> do_wp_page() doesn't have that issue of accuracy only because one round of
> CoW will just allocate a new page with PAE set guaranteed, which is pretty
> much self-heal and unnoticed.

Yes. But it might have to copy, at which point the whole optimization of 
remap is gone :)

> 
> So it'll be great if we can have similar self-heal way for PAE.  If not, I
> think it's still fine we just always fail on !PAE src pages, but then maybe
> we should let the user know what's wrong, e.g., the user can just forgot to
> apply DONTFORK then forked.  And then the user hits error and don't know
> what happened.  Probably at least we should document it well in man pages.
> 
Yes, exactly.

> Another option can be we keep using folio_mapcount() for pte, and another
> helper (perhaps: _nr_pages_mapped==COMPOUND_MAPPED && _entire_mapcount==1)
> for thp.  But I know that's not ideal either.

As long as we only set the pte writable if PAE is set, we're good from a 
CVE perspective. The other part is just simplicity of avoiding all these 
mapcount+swapcount games where possible.

(one day folio_mapcount() might be faster -- I'm still working on that 
patch in the bigger picture of handling PTE-mapped THP better)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb