On 04/04, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 04/02, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently kernel does not account read-only private mappings into memory commitment.
>>> But these mappings can be force-COW-ed in get_user_pages().
>>
>> Heh. tail -n3 Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
>> may be you should update it then.
>
> I just wonder how fragile this accounting...
I meant, this patch could also remove this "TODO" from the docs.
>> Can't really comment the patch, this is not my area. Still,
>>
>>> + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>> + *pvma = vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
>>> + if (vma&& vma->vm_start<= addr) {
>>> + ret = vma->vm_end - addr;
>>> + if ((vma->vm_flags& (VM_ACCOUNT | VM_NORESERVE | VM_SHARED |
>>> + VM_HUGETLB | VM_MAYWRITE)) == VM_MAYWRITE) {
>>> + if (!security_vm_enough_memory_mm(mm, vma_pages(vma)))
>>
>> Oooooh, the whole vma. Say, gdb installs the single breakpoint into
>> the huge .text mapping...
>
> We cannot split vma right there, this will be really weird. =)
Sure, I understand why you did it this way.
>> I am not sure, but probably you want to check at least VM_IO/PFNMAP
>> as well. We do not want to charge this memory and retry with FOLL_FORCE
>> before vm_ops->access(). Say, /dev/mem
>
> No, VM_IO/PFNMAP aren't affect accounting, there is VM_NORESERVE for this.
You misunderstood. Again, I can be wrong, but.
Suppose the task mmmaps /dev/mem (for example). This vma doesn't have
VM_NORESERVE (but it has VM_IO).
gup() fails correctly with or without FOLL_FORCE, we should fallback
to vma_ops->access().
However. With your patch __access_remote_vm() tries gup() without
FOLL_FORCE first and wrongly assumes that it fails because it neeeds
FOLL_FORCE and we are going to force-cow.
So __account_vma() adds VM_ACCOUNT before (unnecessary) retry, and
this is unnecessary too and wrong.
>> Hmm. OTOH, if I am right then mprotect_fixup() should be fixed??
>
> mprotect_fixup() does not account area if it already accounted, so all ok.
No, I meant another thing. But yes, I think I was wrong, mprotect_fixup()
is fine.
>> We drop ->mmap_sem... Say, the task does mremap() in between and
>> len == 2 * PAGE_SIZE. Then, for example, copy_to_user_page() can
>> write to the same page twice. Perhaps not a problem in practice,
>> I dunno.
>
> I have an old unfinished patch which implements upgrade_read() for rw-semaphore =)
Interesting ;)
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>