On Saturday, 17 July 2021 5:11:33 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 03:50:52PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index ae1f5d0cb581..4b46c099ad94 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -5738,7 +5738,7 @@ static enum mc_target_type get_mctgt_type(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > >
> > > if (pte_present(ptent))
> > > page = mc_handle_present_pte(vma, addr, ptent);
> > > - else if (is_swap_pte(ptent))
> > > + else if (pte_has_swap_entry(ptent))
> > > page = mc_handle_swap_pte(vma, ptent, &ent);
> > > else if (pte_none(ptent))
> > > page = mc_handle_file_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
> >
> > As I understand things pte_none() == False for a special swap pte, but
> > shouldn't this be treated as pte_none() here? Ie. does this need to be
> > pte_none(ptent) || is_swap_special_pte() here?
>
> Looks correct; here the page/swap cache could hide behind the special pte just
> like a none pte. Will fix it. Thanks!
>
> >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > index 0e0de08a2cd5..998a4f9a3744 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > @@ -3491,6 +3491,13 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * We should never call do_swap_page upon a swap special pte; just be
> > > + * safe to bail out if it happens.
> > > + */
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(is_swap_special_pte(vmf->orig_pte)))
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> > > if (unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry))) {
> > > if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> >
> > Are there other changes required here? Because we can end up with stale special
> > pte's and a special pte is !pte_none don't we need to fix some of the !pte_none
> > checks in these functions:
> >
> > insert_pfn() -> checks for !pte_none
> > remap_pte_range() -> BUG_ON(!pte_none)
> > apply_to_pte_range() -> didn't check further but it tests for !pte_none
> >
> > In general it feels like I might be missing something here though. There are
> > plenty of checks in the kernel for pte_none() which haven't been updated. Is
> > there some rule that says none of those paths can see a special pte?
>
> My rule on doing this was to only care about vma that can be backed by RAM,
> majorly shmem/hugetlb, so the special pte can only exist there within those
> vmas. I believe in most pte_none() users this special pte won't exist.
>
> So if it's not related to RAM backed memory at all, maybe it's fine to keep the
> pte_none() usage like before.
>
> Take the example of insert_pfn() referenced first - I think it can be used to
> map some MMIO regions, but I don't think we'll call that upon a RAM region
> (either shmem or hugetlb), nor can it be uffd wr-protected. So I'm not sure
> adding special pte check there would be helpful.
>
> apply_to_pte_range() seems to be a bit special - I think the pte_fn_t matters
> more on whether the special pte will matter. I had a quick look, it seems
> still be used mostly by all kinds of driver code not mm core. It's used in two
> forms:
>
> apply_to_page_range
> apply_to_existing_page_range
>
> The first one creates ptes only, so it ignores the pte_none() check so I skipped.
>
> The second one has two call sites:
>
> *** arch/powerpc/mm/pageattr.c:
> change_memory_attr[99] return apply_to_existing_page_range(&init_mm, start, size,
> set_memory_attr[132] return apply_to_existing_page_range(&init_mm, start, sz, set_page_attr,
>
> *** mm/kasan/shadow.c:
> kasan_release_vmalloc[485] apply_to_existing_page_range(&init_mm,
>
> I'll leave the ppc callers for now as uffd-wp is not even supported there. The
> kasan_release_vmalloc() should be for kernel allocated memories only, so should
> not be a target for special pte either.
>
> So indeed it's hard to 100% cover all pte_none() users to make sure things are
> used right. As stated above I still believe most callers don't need that, but
> the worst case is if someone triggered uffd-wp issues with a specific feature,
> we can look into it. I am not sure whether it's good we add this for all the
> pte_none() users, because mostly they'll be useless checks, imho.
I wonder then - should we make pte_none() return true for these special pte's
as well? It seems if we do miss any callers it could result in some fairly hard
to find bugs if the code follows a different path due to the presence of an
unexpected special pte changing the result of pte_none().
> So far what I planned to do is to cover most things we know that may be
> affected like this patch so the change may bring a difference, hopefully we
> won't miss any important spots.
>
> >
> > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > > index 23cbd9de030b..b477d0d5f911 100644
> > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > > @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void __migration_entry_wait(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *ptep,
> > >
> > > spin_lock(ptl);
> > > pte = *ptep;
> > > - if (!is_swap_pte(pte))
> > > + if (!pte_has_swap_entry(pte))
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
> > > @@ -2276,7 +2276,7 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
> > >
> > > pte = *ptep;
> > >
> > > - if (pte_none(pte)) {
> > > + if (pte_none(pte) || is_swap_special_pte(pte)) {
> >
> > I was wondering if we can loose the special pte information here? However I see
> > that in migrate_vma_insert_page() we check again and fail the migration if
> > !pte_none() so I think this is ok.
> >
> > I think it would be better if this check was moved below so the migration fails
> > early. Ie:
> >
> > if (pte_none(pte)) {
> > if (vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !is_swap_special_pte(pte)) {
>
> Hmm.. but shouldn't vma_is_anonymous()==true already means it must not be a
> swap special pte? Because swap special pte only exists when !vma_is_anonymous().
Oh ok that makes sense. With the code written that way it is easy to forget
that though so maybe a comment would help?
> >
> > Also how does this work for page migration in general? I can see in
> > page_vma_mapped_walk() that we skip special pte's, but doesn't this mean we
> > loose the special pte in that instance? Or is that ok for some reason?
>
> Do you mean try_to_migrate_one()? Does it need to be aware of that? Per my
> understanding that's only for anonymous private memory, while in that world
> there should have no swap special pte (page_lock_anon_vma_read will return NULL
> early for !vma_is_anonymous).
As far as I know try_to_migrate_one() gets called for both anonymous pages and
file-backed pages. page_lock_anon_vma_read() is only called in the case of an
anonymous vma. See the implementation of rmap_walk() - it will call either
rmap_walk_anon() or rmap_walk_file() depending on the result of PageAnon().
- Alistair
> Thanks,
>
>
