lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect
From
Date
> On Dec 23, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 05:21:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> I don’t love this as a long term fix. AFAICT we can have mm_tlb_flush_pending set for quite a while — mprotect seems like it can wait in IO while splitting a huge page, for example. That gives us a window in which every write fault turns into a TLB flush.
>>
>> mprotect can't run concurrently with a page fault in the first place.
>>
>> One other near zero cost improvement easy to add if this would be "if
>> (vma->vm_flags & (VM_SOFTDIRTY|VM_UFFD_WP))" and it could be made
>> conditional to the two config options too.
>>
>> Still I don't mind doing it in some other way, uffd-wp has much easier
>> time doing it in another way in fact.
>>
>> Whatever performs better is fine, but queuing up pending invalidate
>> ranges don't look very attractive since it'd be a fixed cost that we'd
>> always have to pay even when there's no fault (and there can't be any
>> fault at least for mprotect).
>
> I think there are other cases in which Andy’s concern is relevant
> (MADV_PAGEOUT).
>
> Perhaps holding some small bitmap based on part of the deferred flushed
> pages (e.g., bits 12-17 of the address or some other kind of a single
> hash-function bloom-filter) would be more performant to avoid (most)
> unnecessary TLB flushes. It will be cleared before a TLB flush and set while
> holding the PTL.
>
> Checking if a flush is needed, under the PTL, would require a single memory
> access (although potentially cache miss). It will however require one atomic
> operation for each page-table whose PTEs’ flushes are deferred - in contrast
> to the current scheme which requires two atomic operations for the *entire*
> operation.

Just to finish my thought - clearing the bitmap is the tricky part,
which I still did not figure out.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-24 04:32    [W:0.374 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site