Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:22:03 +0100 | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/migrate: Fix read-only page got writable when recover pte |
| |
>> I consider UFFD-wp a special case: while the default VMA protection might >> state that it is writable, you actually want individual PTEs to be >> write-protected and have to manually remove the protection. >> >> softdirty tracking is another special case: however, softdirty tracking is >> enabled for the whole VMA. For remove_migration_pte() that should be fine (I >> guess) because writenotify is active when the VMA needs to track softdirty >> bits, and consequently vma->vm_page_prot has the proper default permissions. >> >> >> I wonder if the following (valid), for example is possible: >> >> >> 1) clear_refs() clears VM_SOFTDIRTY and pte_wrprotect() the pte. >> -> writenotify is active and vma->vm_page_prot updated accordingly >> >> VM_SOFTDIRTY is reset due to VMA merging and vma->vm_page_prot is updated >> accordingly. See mmap_region() where we set VM_SOFTDIRTY. >> >> If you now migrate the (still write-protected in the PTE) page, it was not >> writable, but it can be writable on the destination. > > I didn't even notice merging could work with soft-dirty enabled, that's > interesting to know. > > Yes I think it's possible and I agree it's safe, as VM_SOFTDIRTY is set for > the merged vma so afaiu the write bit is safe to set. We get a bunch of > false positives but that's how soft-dirty works. > > I think the whole problem is easier if we see this at a higher level. > You're discussing this from vma pov and it's fair to do so, at least I > agree with what you mentioned so far and I can't see anything outside > uffd-wp that can be affected. However, it is also true when you noticed we > already have quite a few paragraphs trying to discuss the safety for this > and that, that's the part where I think we need justification and it's not > that "natural". > > For "natural", I meant fundamentally we're talking about page migrations > here. The natural way (at least to me) for page migration to happen as a > fundamental rule is that, we leverag the migration pte to make sure the pte > being stable so we can do the migration work, then we "recover" the pte to > present either by a full recovery or just (hopefully) only replace the pfn, > keeping all the rest untouched. > > One thing to prove that is we have two migration entries not one (I'm > temporarily put the exclusive read one aside since that's solving different > problems): MIGRATION_READ and MIGRATION_WRITE. If we only rely on vma > flags logically we don't need MIGRATION_READ and MIGRATION_WRITE, we only > need MIGRATION generic swap pte then we recover the write bit from vma > flags and other things (like uffd-wp, currently we have the bit set in swap > pte besides the swap entry type). > > So maybe one day we can use two migration types rather than three > (MIGRATION and MIGRATION_EXCLUSIVE)? I can't tell, but hopefully that > shows what I meant, that we need further justification to grant write bit > only base on vma, rather than recovering write bit based on migration entry > type.
That's precisely what I had in mind recently, and I am happy to hear that you have similar idea:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221108174652.198904-6-david@redhat.com
" Note that we don't optimize for the actual migration case: (1) When migration succeeds the new PTE will not be writable because the source PTE was not writable (protnone); in the future we might just optimize that case similarly by reusing can_change_pte_writable()/can_change_pmd_writable() when removing migration PTEs. "
Currently, "readable_migration_entry" is even wrong: it might be PROT_NONE and not even readable.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |