On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:42:57PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-06-22 17:35:25, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > index 1962008fe743..93c8eba1a66d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > @@ -742,6 +742,32 @@ static long prctl_map_vdso(const struct vdso_image *image, unsigned long addr)
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(unsigned long nr_bits)
> > +{
> > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > +
> > + /* Already enabled? */
> > + if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask)
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > + /* LAM has to be enabled before spawning threads */
> > + if (get_nr_threads(current) > 1)
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> This will not be sufficient in general. You can have mm shared with a
> process without CLONE_THREAD. So you would also need to check also
> MMF_MULTIPROCESS. But I do remember that general get_nr_threads is quite
> tricky to use properly. Make sure to CC Oleg Nesterov for more details.
>
> Also how does this work when the mm is shared with a kernel thread?
It seems we need to check mm_count to exclude kernel threads that use the
mm. But I expect it to produce bunch of false-positives.
Or we can make all CPUs to do
switch_mm(current->mm, current->mm, current);
and get LAM bits updated regardless what mm it runs. It would also remove
limitation that LAM can only be enabled when there's no threads.
But I feel that is a bad idea, but I have no clue why. :P
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
