>> Relying on VM_SHARED to detect MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED is
>> unfortunately wrong.
>>
>> If you're curious, take a look at f83a275dbc5c ("mm: account for
>> MAP_SHARED mappings using VM_MAYSHARE and not VM_SHARED in hugetlbfs")
>> and mmap() code.
>>
>> Long story short: if the file is read-only, we only have VM_MAYSHARE but
>> not VM_SHARED (and consequently also not VM_MAYWRITE).
>
> To ask in another way: if file is RO but mapped RW (mmap() will have
> VM_SHARED cleared but VM_MAYSHARE set), then if we check VM_MAYSHARE here
> won't we grant write bit errornously while we shouldn't? As the user
> doesn't really have write permission to the file.
Thus the VM_WRITE check. :)
I wonder if we should just do it cleanly and introduce the maybe_mkwrite
semantics here as well. Then there is no need for additional VM_WRITE
checks and hugetlb will work just like !hugetlb.
Thoughts?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (unshare)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> Curious when will this happen especially if we switch to VM_SHARED above.
>>> Shouldn't "unshare" not happen at all on a shared region?
>>
>> FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE is documented to behave like:
>>
>> "FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE is ignored and treated like an ordinary read fault
>> when no existing R/O-mapped anonymous page is encountered."
>>
>> It should currently not happen. Focus on should ;)
>
> OK. :)
>
> Then does it also mean that it should be better to turn into
> WARN_ON_ONCE()? It's just that it looks like a valid path if without it.
Well, it should work (and we handle the !hugetlb path) like that as
well. So I'd want to avoid WARN_ON_ONCE() at least for that check.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)))
>>>> + return VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV;
>>>
>>> I had a feeling that you just want to double check we have write
>>> permission, but IIUC this should be checked far earlier or we'll have
>>> problem. No strong opinion if so, but I'd suggest dropping this one,
>>> otherwise we could add tons of WARN_ON_ONCE() in anywhere in the page fault
>>> stack and they mostly won't trigger at all.
>>
>> Not quite. We usually (!hugetlb) have maybe_mkwrite() all over the
>> place. This is just an indication that we don't have maybe semantics
>> here. But as we also don't have it for hugetlb anon code below, maybe I
>> can just drop it. (or check it for both call paths)
>
> Hmm, this reminded me to wonder how hugetlb handles FOLL_FORCE|FOLL_WRITE
> on RO regions.
>
> Maybe that check is needed, but however instead of warning and sigbus, we
> need to handle it?
We don't support FOLL_FORCE|FOLL_WRITE for hugetlb, but if we would,
we'd need the maybe_mkwrite semantics.
Fortunately I detest private hugetlb mappings / anon hugetlb pages and
couldn't care less about debug access until it's actually a problem for
someone :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
