Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90269-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <fefd4a04-0af3-4135-9e98-c983ee321e52@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:04:25 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
CC: <mawupeng1@huawei.com>, <luto@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>, <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	<bhelgaas@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] CoW on VM_PFNMAP vma during write fault
Content-Language: en-US
To: <david@redhat.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
	<jaredeh@gmail.com>, <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	<cotte@de.ibm.com>, <npiggin@suse.de>
References: <20240227122814.3781907-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com>
 <a74c8b96-3fc5-44ff-949c-6e5c5e05e122@redhat.com>
 <de0cc6e0-dd15-40b6-89c2-c8e83fd6f587@redhat.com>
 <fa8f9f3b-e01e-4662-a2d5-77caeeb7b9f5@huawei.com>
 <234a5423-8d6d-444a-a27c-c772a71c9871@huawei.com>
 <6e948123-df3a-4450-8fd3-76b9131a35a0@redhat.com>
From: mawupeng <mawupeng1@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e948123-df3a-4450-8fd3-76b9131a35a0@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/3/4 16:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.03.24 09:47, mawupeng wrote:
>> Hi Maintainers, kindly ping...
>>
>> On 2024/2/28 9:55, mawupeng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/2/27 21:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 27.02.24 14:00, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 27.02.24 13:28, Wupeng Ma wrote:
>>>>>> We find that a warn will be produced during our test, the detail log is
>>>>>> shown in the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The core problem of this warn is that the first pfn of this pfnmap vma is
>>>>>> cleared during memory-failure. Digging into the source we find that this
>>>>>> problem can be triggered as following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // mmap with MAP_PRIVATE and specific fd which hook mmap
>>>>>> mmap(MAP_PRIVATE, fd)
>>>>>>      __mmap_region
>>>>>>        remap_pfn_range
>>>>>>        // set vma with pfnmap and the prot of pte is read only
>>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, so we get a MAP_PRIVATE VM_PFNMAP I assume.
>>>>>
>>>>> What fd is that exactly? Often, we disallow private mappings in the
>>>>> mmap() callback (for a good reason).
>>
>> We found this problem in 5.10, Commit 9f78bf330a66 ("xsk: support use vaddr as ring") Fix this
>> problem during supporting vaddr by remap VM_PFNMAP by VM_MIXEDMAP. But other modules which
>> use remap_pfn_range may still have this problem.
> 
> I wrote a simple reproducer using MAP_PRIVATE of iouring queues on Friday.
> 
>>
>> It do seems wired for private mappings, What is the good reason?
> 
> I'm sure there are some use cases that require MAP_PRIVATE of such areas, and usually there is nothing wrong with that.

So MAP_PRIVATE for VM_PFNMAP area with write access is ok? What is the user case for this situation?

> 
> It's just that the PAT implementation incompatible.

PAT do have its problem.

> 
> I can submit a cleaned-up version of my patches.

Thanks

>