Le 09/09/2022 à 01:57, Suren Baghdasaryan a écrit :
> 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?
If a page is faulted while copy_page_range() is in progress, the page may
not be backed on the child side (PTE lock should protect the copy, isn't it).
Is that a real problem? It will be backed later if accessed on the child side.
Maybe the per process pages accounting could be incorrect...
>
>> 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);
>>
