On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:37:24AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.02.25 11:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:27:28AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 21.02.25 13:05, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > Currently there is no means by which users can determine whether a given
> > > > page in memory is in fact a guard region, that is having had the
> > > > MADV_GUARD_INSTALL madvise() flag applied to it.
> > > >
> > > > This is intentional, as to provide this information in VMA metadata would
> > > > contradict the intent of the feature (providing a means to change fault
> > > > behaviour at a page table level rather than a VMA level), and would require
> > > > VMA metadata operations to scan page tables, which is unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, users have no need to reflect and determine what regions
> > > > have been designated guard regions, as it is the user who has established
> > > > them in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > But in some instances, such as monitoring software, or software that relies
> > > > upon being able to ascertain the nature of mappings within a remote process
> > > > for instance, it becomes useful to be able to determine which pages have
> > > > the guard region marker applied.
> > > >
> > > > This patch makes use of an unused pagemap bit (58) to provide this
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > This patch updates the documentation at the same time as making the change
> > > > such that the implementation of the feature and the documentation of it are
> > > > tied together.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Something that might be interesting is also extending the PAGEMAP_SCAN
> > > ioctl.
> >
> > Yeah, funny you should mention that, I did see that, but on reading the man
> > page it struck me that it requires the region to be uffd afaict? All the
> > tests seem to establish uffd, and the man page implies it:
> >
> > To start tracking the written state (flag) of a page or range of
> > memory, the UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC must be enabled by UFFDIO_API
> > ioctl(2) on userfaultfd and memory range must be registered with
> > UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl(2) in UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP mode.
> >
> > It would be a bit of a weird edge case to add support there. I was excited
> > when I first saw this ioctl, then disappointed afterwards... but maybe I
> > got it wrong?
> >
>
> I never managed to review that fully, but I thing that UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC
> thingy is only required for PM_SCAN_CHECK_WPASYNC and PM_SCAN_WP_MATCHING.
>
> See pagemap_scan_test_walk().
>
> I do recall that it works on any VMA.
Oh ok well that's handy then!
>
> Ah yes, tools/testing/selftests/mm/vm_util.c ends up using it for
> pagemap_is_swapped() and friends via page_entry_is() to sanity check that
> what pagemap gives us is consistent with what pagemap_scan gives us.
>
> So it should work independent of the uffd magic.
> I might be wrong, though ...
No a quick glance makes me think you're right actually.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > See do_pagemap_scan().
> > >
> > > The benefit here might be that one could effectively search/filter for guard
> > > regions without copying 64bit per base-page to user space.
> > >
> > > But the idea would be to indicate something like PAGE_IS_GUARD_REGION as a
> > > category when we hit a guard region entry in pagemap_page_category().
> > >
> > > (the code is a bit complicated, and I am not sure why we indicate
> > > PAGE_IS_SWAPPED for non-swap entries, likely wrong ...)
> >
> > Yeah, I could go on here about how much I hate how uffd does a 'parallel
> > implementation' of a ton of stuff and then chucks in if (uffd) { go do
> > something weird + wonderful } but I'll resist the urge :P :))
> >
> > Do you think, if it were uffd-specific, this would be useful?
>
> If it really is completely uffd-specific for now, I agree that we should
> rather leave it alone.
Yeah agreed.
>
> >
> > At any rate, I'm not sure it's _hugely_ beneficial in this form as pagemap
> > is binary in any case so you're not having to deal with overhead of parsing
> > a text file at least!
>
> My thinking was, that if you have a large VMA, with ordinary pagemap you
> have to copy 8byte per entry (and have room for that somewhere in user
> space). In theory, with the scanning feature, you can leave that ...
> scanning to the kernel and don't have to do any copying/allocate space for
> it in user space etc.
That makes perfect sense!
I think this one will go a little lower on priorities + I'll come back to it but
I"ll put it on the one reliable todo list I have, the whiteboard in my home
office :) everything on that list at least eventually gets looked at, majority
get done.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Great minds think alike though ;) as soon as I saw this I did think about
extending it, but seems I mistakenly dismissed for uffd reasons.
Cheers, Lorenzo
