Re: [PATCH 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 14.09.23 20:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 08:26:12AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
+++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
@@ -93,6 +93,23 @@ extern int mwriteprotect_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
  extern long uffd_wp_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
  			  unsigned long start, unsigned long len, bool enable_wp);
+/* remap_pages */
+extern void double_pt_lock(spinlock_t *ptl1, spinlock_t *ptl2);
+extern void double_pt_unlock(spinlock_t *ptl1, spinlock_t *ptl2);
+extern ssize_t remap_pages(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
+			   struct mm_struct *src_mm,
+			   unsigned long dst_start,
+			   unsigned long src_start,
+			   unsigned long len, __u64 flags);
+extern int remap_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
+				struct mm_struct *src_mm,
+				pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
+				pmd_t dst_pmdval,
+				struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
+				struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+				unsigned long dst_addr,
+				unsigned long src_addr);

Drop the 'extern' markers from function declarations.

+int remap_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
+			 struct mm_struct *src_mm,
+			 pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
+			 pmd_t dst_pmdval,
+			 struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
+			 struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+			 unsigned long dst_addr,
+			 unsigned long src_addr)
+{
+	pmd_t _dst_pmd, src_pmdval;
+	struct page *src_page;
+	struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma, *dst_anon_vma;
+	spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl;
+	pgtable_t pgtable;
+	struct mmu_notifier_range range;
+
+	src_pmdval = *src_pmd;
+	src_ptl = pmd_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
+
+	BUG_ON(!pmd_trans_huge(src_pmdval));
+	BUG_ON(!pmd_none(dst_pmdval));
+	BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(src_ptl));
+	mmap_assert_locked(src_mm);
+	mmap_assert_locked(dst_mm);
+	BUG_ON(src_addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK);
+	BUG_ON(dst_addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK);
+
+	src_page = pmd_page(src_pmdval);
+	BUG_ON(!PageHead(src_page));
+	BUG_ON(!PageAnon(src_page));

Better to add a src_folio = page_folio(src_page);
and then folio_test_anon() here.

+	if (unlikely(page_mapcount(src_page) != 1)) {

Brr, this is going to miss PTE mappings of this folio.  I think you
actually want folio_mapcount() instead, although it'd be more efficient
to look at folio->_entire_mapcount == 1 and _nr_pages_mapped == 0.
Not wure what a good name for that predicate would be.

We have

 * It only works on non shared anonymous pages because those can
 * be relocated without generating non linear anon_vmas in the rmap
 * code.
 *
 * It provides a zero copy mechanism to handle userspace page faults.
 * The source vma pages should have mapcount == 1, which can be
 * enforced by using madvise(MADV_DONTFORK) on src vma.

Use PageAnonExclusive(). As long as KSM is not involved and you don't use fork(), that flag should be good enough for that use case here.

[...]

+			/*
+			 * Pin the page while holding the lock to be sure the
+			 * page isn't freed under us
+			 */
+			spin_lock(src_ptl);
+			if (!pte_same(orig_src_pte, *src_pte)) {
+				spin_unlock(src_ptl);
+				err = -EAGAIN;
+				goto out;
+			}
+
+			folio = vm_normal_folio(src_vma, src_addr, orig_src_pte);
+			if (!folio || !folio_test_anon(folio) ||
+			    folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1) {

I wonder if we also want to fail if folio_test_large()?  While we don't
have large anon folios today, it seems to me that trying to migrate one
of them like this is just not going to work.

Yes, refuse any PTE-mapped large folios.


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux