On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 7:38 AM Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Le 01/09/2022 à 19:34, Suren Baghdasaryan a écrit :
> > Protect VMAs from concurrent page fault handler while performing
> > copy_page_range for VMAs having VM_WIPEONFORK flag set.
>
> I'm wondering why is that necessary.
> The copied mm is write locked, and the destination one is not reachable.
> If any other readers are using the VMA, this is only for page fault handling.
Correct, this is done to prevent page faulting in the VMA being
duplicated. I assume we want to prevent the pages in that VMA from
changing when we are calling copy_page_range(). Am I wrong?
> I should have miss something because I can't see any need to mark the lock
> VMA here.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/fork.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index bfab31ecd11e..1872ad549fed 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -709,8 +709,10 @@ static __latent_entropy int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > rb_parent = &tmp->vm_rb;
> >
> > mm->map_count++;
> > - if (!(tmp->vm_flags & VM_WIPEONFORK))
> > + if (!(tmp->vm_flags & VM_WIPEONFORK)) {
> > + vma_mark_locked(mpnt);
> > retval = copy_page_range(tmp, mpnt);
> > + }
> >
> > if (tmp->vm_ops && tmp->vm_ops->open)
> > tmp->vm_ops->open(tmp);
>
