On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 2:06 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 16.03.22 22:23, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:52 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's mark exclusively mapped anonymous pages with PG_anon_exclusive as
> >> exclusive, and use that information to make GUP pins reliable and stay
> >> consistent with the page mapped into the page table even if the
> >> page table entry gets write-protected.
> >>
> >> With that information at hand, we can extend our COW logic to always
> >> reuse anonymous pages that are exclusive. For anonymous pages that
> >> might be shared, the existing logic applies.
> >>
> >> As already documented, PG_anon_exclusive is usually only expressive in
> >> combination with a page table entry. Especially PTE vs. PMD-mapped
> >> anonymous pages require more thought, some examples: due to mremap() we
> >> can easily have a single compound page PTE-mapped into multiple page tables
> >> exclusively in a single process -- multiple page table locks apply.
> >> Further, due to MADV_WIPEONFORK we might not necessarily write-protect
> >> all PTEs, and only some subpages might be pinned. Long story short: once
> >> PTE-mapped, we have to track information about exclusivity per sub-page,
> >> but until then, we can just track it for the compound page in the head
> >> page and not having to update a whole bunch of subpages all of the time
> >> for a simple PMD mapping of a THP.
> >>
> >> For simplicity, this commit mostly talks about "anonymous pages", while
> >> it's for THP actually "the part of an anonymous folio referenced via
> >> a page table entry".
> >>
> >> To not spill PG_anon_exclusive code all over the mm code-base, we let
> >> the anon rmap code to handle all PG_anon_exclusive logic it can easily
> >> handle.
> >>
> >> If a writable, present page table entry points at an anonymous (sub)page,
> >> that (sub)page must be PG_anon_exclusive. If GUP wants to take a reliably
> >> pin (FOLL_PIN) on an anonymous page references via a present
> >> page table entry, it must only pin if PG_anon_exclusive is set for the
> >> mapped (sub)page.
> >>
> >> This commit doesn't adjust GUP, so this is only implicitly handled for
> >> FOLL_WRITE, follow-up commits will teach GUP to also respect it for
> >> FOLL_PIN without !FOLL_WRITE, to make all GUP pins of anonymous pages
> >> fully reliable.
> >>
> >> Whenever an anonymous page is to be shared (fork(), KSM), or when
> >> temporarily unmapping an anonymous page (swap, migration), the relevant
> >> PG_anon_exclusive bit has to be cleared to mark the anonymous page
> >> possibly shared. Clearing will fail if there are GUP pins on the page:
> >> * For fork(), this means having to copy the page and not being able to
> >> share it. fork() protects against concurrent GUP using the PT lock and
> >> the src_mm->write_protect_seq.
> >> * For KSM, this means sharing will fail. For swap this means, unmapping
> >> will fail, For migration this means, migration will fail early. All
> >> three cases protect against concurrent GUP using the PT lock and a
> >> proper clear/invalidate+flush of the relevant page table entry.
> >>
> >> This fixes memory corruptions reported for FOLL_PIN | FOLL_WRITE, when a
> >> pinned page gets mapped R/O and the successive write fault ends up
> >> replacing the page instead of reusing it. It improves the situation for
> >> O_DIRECT/vmsplice/... that still use FOLL_GET instead of FOLL_PIN,
> >> if fork() is *not* involved, however swapout and fork() are still
> >> problematic. Properly using FOLL_PIN instead of FOLL_GET for these
> >> GUP users will fix the issue for them.
> >>
> >> I. Details about basic handling
> >>
> >> I.1. Fresh anonymous pages
> >>
> >> page_add_new_anon_rmap() and hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap() will mark the
> >> given page exclusive via __page_set_anon_rmap(exclusive=1). As that is
> >> the mechanism fresh anonymous pages come into life (besides migration
> >> code where we copy the page->mapping), all fresh anonymous pages will
> >> start out as exclusive.
> >>
> >> I.2. COW reuse handling of anonymous pages
> >>
> >> When a COW handler stumbles over a (sub)page that's marked exclusive, it
> >> simply reuses it. Otherwise, the handler tries harder under page lock to
> >> detect if the (sub)page is exclusive and can be reused. If exclusive,
> >> page_move_anon_rmap() will mark the given (sub)page exclusive.
> >>
> >> Note that hugetlb code does not yet check for PageAnonExclusive(), as it
> >> still uses the old COW logic that is prone to the COW security issue
> >> because hugetlb code cannot really tolerate unnecessary/wrong COW as
> >> huge pages are a scarce resource.
> >>
> >> I.3. Migration handling
> >>
> >> try_to_migrate() has to try marking an exclusive anonymous page shared
> >> via page_try_share_anon_rmap(). If it fails because there are GUP pins
> >> on the page, unmap fails. migrate_vma_collect_pmd() and
> >> __split_huge_pmd_locked() are handled similarly.
> >>
> >> Writable migration entries implicitly point at shared anonymous pages.
> >> For readable migration entries that information is stored via a new
> >> "readable-exclusive" migration entry, specific to anonymous pages.
> >>
> >> When restoring a migration entry in remove_migration_pte(), information
> >> about exlusivity is detected via the migration entry type, and
> >> RMAP_EXCLUSIVE is set accordingly for
> >> page_add_anon_rmap()/hugepage_add_anon_rmap() to restore that
> >> information.
> >>
> >> I.4. Swapout handling
> >>
> >> try_to_unmap() has to try marking the mapped page possibly shared via
> >> page_try_share_anon_rmap(). If it fails because there are GUP pins on the
> >> page, unmap fails. For now, information about exclusivity is lost. In the
> >> future, we might want to remember that information in the swap entry in
> >> some cases, however, it requires more thought, care, and a way to store
> >> that information in swap entries.
> >>
> >> I.5. Swapin handling
> >>
> >> do_swap_page() will never stumble over exclusive anonymous pages in the
> >> swap cache, as try_to_migrate() prohibits that. do_swap_page() always has
> >> to detect manually if an anonymous page is exclusive and has to set
> >> RMAP_EXCLUSIVE for page_add_anon_rmap() accordingly.
> >>
> >> I.6. THP handling
> >>
> >> __split_huge_pmd_locked() has to move the information about exclusivity
> >> from the PMD to the PTEs.
> >>
> >> a) In case we have a readable-exclusive PMD migration entry, simply insert
> >> readable-exclusive PTE migration entries.
> >>
> >> b) In case we have a present PMD entry and we don't want to freeze
> >> ("convert to migration entries"), simply forward PG_anon_exclusive to
> >> all sub-pages, no need to temporarily clear the bit.
> >>
> >> c) In case we have a present PMD entry and want to freeze, handle it
> >> similar to try_to_migrate(): try marking the page shared first. In case
> >> we fail, we ignore the "freeze" instruction and simply split ordinarily.
> >> try_to_migrate() will properly fail because the THP is still mapped via
> >> PTEs.
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the review!
>
> >
> > How come will try_to_migrate() fail? The afterward pvmw will find
> > those PTEs then convert them to migration entries anyway IIUC.
> >
>
> It will run into that code:
>
> >> @@ -1903,6 +1938,15 @@ static bool try_to_migrate_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(pte_write(pteval) && PageAnon(page) &&
> >> + !anon_exclusive, page);
> >> + if (anon_exclusive &&
> >> + page_try_share_anon_rmap(subpage)) {
> >> + set_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
> >> + ret = false;
> >> + page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >> + break;
> >> + }
>
> and similarly fail the page_try_share_anon_rmap(), at which point
> try_to_migrate() stops and the caller will still observe a
> "page_mapped() == true".
Thanks, I missed that. Yes, the page will still be mapped. This should
trigger the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE in unmap_page(), if this change will make
this happen more often, we may consider removing that warning even
though it is "once" since seeing a mapped page may become a normal
case (once DIO is switched to FOLL_PIN, it may be more often). Anyway
we don't have to remove it right now.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
