On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 05:00:27PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:19:14PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > @@ -2152,20 +2163,34 @@ static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src, unsigned lo
> > */
> > if (unlikely(!src)) {
> > void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(dst);
> > - void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(va & PAGE_MASK);
> > + void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(addr & PAGE_MASK);
> > + pte_t entry;
> >
> > /*
> > * This really shouldn't fail, because the page is there
> > * in the page tables. But it might just be unreadable,
> > * in which case we just give up and fill the result with
> > - * zeroes.
> > + * zeroes. On architectures with software "accessed" bits,
> > + * we would take a double page fault here, so mark it
> > + * accessed here.
> > */
> > + if (arch_faults_on_old_pte() && !pte_young(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> > + spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> > + if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
> > + entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
> > + if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr,
> > + vmf->pte, entry, 0))
> > + update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, vmf->pte);
> > + }
>
> I don't follow.
>
> So if pte has changed under you, you don't set the accessed bit, but never
> the less copy from the user.
>
> What makes you think it will not trigger the same problem?
>
> I think we need to make cow_user_page() fail in this case and caller --
> wp_page_copy() -- return zero. If the fault was solved by other thread, we
> are fine. If not userspace would re-fault on the same address and we will
> handle the fault from the second attempt.
It would be nice to clarify the semantics of this function and do as
you suggest but the current comment is slightly confusing:
/*
* If the source page was a PFN mapping, we don't have
* a "struct page" for it. We do a best-effort copy by
* just copying from the original user address. If that
* fails, we just zero-fill it. Live with it.
*/
Would any user-space rely on getting a zero-filled page here instead of
a recursive fault?
--
Catalin
