On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:56:42PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:05 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index d5966d9e24c3..e8557d43a87d 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -3452,6 +3452,43 @@ static vm_fault_t remove_device_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static vm_fault_t pte_marker_clear(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +{
> > + vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
> > + vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> > + /*
> > + * Be careful so that we will only recover a special uffd-wp pte into a
> > + * none pte. Otherwise it means the pte could have changed, so retry.
> > + */
> > + if (is_pte_marker(*vmf->pte))
> > + pte_clear(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> > + pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This is actually a page-missing access, but with uffd-wp special pte
> > + * installed. It means this pte was wr-protected before being unmapped.
> > + */
> > +static vm_fault_t pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +{
> > + /* Careful! vmf->pte unmapped after return */
> > + if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
>
> Hasn't vmf->pte already been unmapped by do_swap_page() by the time we get
> here?
Great catch, thanks!
It was needed before with the "swap special pte" version because that was
handled outside do_swap_page(). After the rebase I forgot to remove it.
I believe it didn't crash simply because we've got commit 2ca99358671a ("mm:
clear vmf->pte after pte_unmap_same() returns", 2021-11-06) very recently so it
just became a safe no-op, so all things will still work.
I'll drop it.
>
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Just in case there're leftover special ptes even after the region
> > + * got unregistered - we can simply clear them. We can also do that
> > + * proactively when e.g. when we do UFFDIO_UNREGISTER upon some uffd-wp
> > + * ranges, but it should be more efficient to be done lazily here.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(!userfaultfd_wp(vmf->vma) || vma_is_anonymous(vmf->vma)))
> > + return pte_marker_clear(vmf);
> > +
> > + /* do_fault() can handle pte markers too like none pte */
> > + return do_fault(vmf);
> > +}
> > +
> > static vm_fault_t handle_pte_marker(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > {
> > swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> > @@ -3465,8 +3502,11 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_marker(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vma_is_anonymous(vmf->vma) || !marker))
> > return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> >
> > - /* TODO: handle pte markers */
> > - return 0;
> > + if (marker & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP)
>
> Can we make this check `marker == PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP`? There is currently only
> one user of pte markers, and from what I can tell pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp()
> wouldn't do the correct thing if other users were added because it could clear
> non-uffd-wp markers. I don't think it's worth making it do the right thing now,
> but a comment noting that would be helpful.
Sure thing, and yeah I agree it's trivial and shouldn't matter in real-life.
I'll change it to "marker == PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP" as you suggested, so if
there's surprise we'll get a sigbus.
Thanks,
>
> > + return pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp(vmf);
> > +
> > + /* This is an unknown pte marker */
> > + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > }
--
Peter Xu
