From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@xxxxxxxx> Adds documentation about the write protection support. Signed-off-by: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@xxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> [peterx: rewrite in rst format; fixups here and there] Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst index 5048cf661a8a..c30176e67900 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst @@ -108,6 +108,57 @@ UFFDIO_COPY. They're atomic as in guaranteeing that nothing can see an half copied page since it'll keep userfaulting until the copy has finished. +Notes: + +- If you requested UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING when registering then + you must provide some kind of page in your thread after reading from + the uffd. You must provide either UFFDIO_COPY or UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE. + The normal behavior of the OS automatically providing a zero page on + an annonymous mmaping is not in place. + +- None of the page-delivering ioctls default to the range that you + registered with. You must fill in all fields for the appropriate + ioctl struct including the range. + +- You get the address of the access that triggered the missing page + event out of a struct uffd_msg that you read in the thread from the + uffd. You can supply as many pages as you want with UFFDIO_COPY or + UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE. Keep in mind that unless you used DONTWAKE then + the first of any of those IOCTLs wakes up the faulting thread. + +- Be sure to test for all errors including (pollfd[0].revents & + POLLERR). This can happen, e.g. when ranges supplied were + incorrect. + +Write Protect Notifications +--------------------------- + +This is equivalent to (but faster than) using mprotect and a SIGSEGV +signal handler. + +Firstly you need to register a range with UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP. +Instead of using mprotect(2) you use ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, +struct *uffdio_writeprotect) while mode = UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP +in the struct passed in. The range does not default to and does not +have to be identical to the range you registered with. You can write +protect as many ranges as you like (inside the registered range). +Then, in the thread reading from uffd the struct will have +msg.arg.pagefault.flags & UFFD_PAGEFAULT_FLAG_WP set. Now you send +ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, struct *uffdio_writeprotect) again +while pagefault.mode does not have UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP set. +This wakes up the thread which will continue to run with writes. This +allows you to do the bookkeeping about the write in the uffd reading +thread before the ioctl. + +If you registered with both UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING and +UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP then you need to think about the sequence in +which you supply a page and undo write protect. Note that there is a +difference between writes into a WP area and into a !WP area. The +former will have UFFD_PAGEFAULT_FLAG_WP set, the latter +UFFD_PAGEFAULT_FLAG_WRITE. The latter did not fail on protection but +you still need to supply a page when UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING was +used. + QEMU/KVM ======== -- 2.17.1
