> On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:12 PM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 08:36:15PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:06:02PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ cc’ing some more people who have experience with similar problems ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:30:06PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Analyzing this problem indicates that there is a real bug since
>>>>>>>> mmap_lock is only taken for read in mwriteprotect_range(). This might
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never having to take the mmap_sem for writing, and in turn never
>>>>>>> blocking, in order to modify the pagetables is quite an important
>>>>>>> feature in uffd that justifies uffd instead of mprotect. It's not the
>>>>>>> most important reason to use uffd, but it'd be nice if that guarantee
>>>>>>> would remain also for the UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT API, not only for the
>>>>>>> other pgtable manipulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the following scenario with 3 CPUs (cpu2 is not shown):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cpu0 cpu1
>>>>>>>> ---- ----
>>>>>>>> userfaultfd_writeprotect()
>>>>>>>> [ write-protecting ]
>>>>>>>> mwriteprotect_range()
>>>>>>>> mmap_read_lock()
>>>>>>>> change_protection()
>>>>>>>> change_protection_range()
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> change_pte_range()
>>>>>>>> [ defer TLB flushes]
>>>>>>>> userfaultfd_writeprotect()
>>>>>>>> mmap_read_lock()
>>>>>>>> change_protection()
>>>>>>>> [ write-unprotect ]
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> [ unprotect PTE logically ]
>>>>
>>>> Is the uffd selftest failing with upstream or after your kernel
>>>> modification that removes the tlb flush from unprotect?
>>>
>>> Please see my reply to Yu. I was wrong in this analysis, and I sent a
>>> correction to my analysis. The problem actually happens when
>>> userfaultfd_writeprotect() unprotects the memory.
>>>
>>>> } else if (uffd_wp_resolve) {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Leave the write bit to be handled
>>>> * by PF interrupt handler, then
>>>> * things like COW could be properly
>>>> * handled.
>>>> */
>>>> ptent = pte_clear_uffd_wp(ptent);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Upstraem this will still do pages++, there's a tlb flush before
>>>> change_protection can return here, so I'm confused.
>>>
>>> You are correct. The problem I encountered with userfaultfd_writeprotect()
>>> is during unprotecting path.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I think that there are additional scenarios that are
>>> problematic. Consider for instance madvise_dontneed_free() that is racing
>>> with userfaultfd_writeprotect(). If madvise_dontneed_free() completed
>>> removing the PTEs, but still did not flush, change_pte_range() will see
>>> non-present PTEs, say a flush is not needed, and then
>>> change_protection_range() will not do a flush, and return while
>>> the memory is still not protected.
>>>
>>>> I don't share your concern. What matters is the PT lock, so it
>>>> wouldn't be one per pte, but a least an order 9 higher, but let's
>>>> assume one flush per pte.
>>>>
>>>> It's either huge mapping and then it's likely running without other
>>>> tlb flushing in background (postcopy snapshotting), or it's a granular
>>>> protect with distributed shared memory in which case the number of
>>>> changd ptes or huge_pmds tends to be always 1 anyway. So it doesn't
>>>> matter if it's deferred.
>>>>
>>>> I agree it may require a larger tlb flush review not just mprotect
>>>> though, but it didn't sound particularly complex. Note the
>>>> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT is still relatively recent so backports won't
>>>> risk to reject so heavy as to require a band-aid.
>>>>
>>>> My second thought is, I don't see exactly the bug and it's not clear
>>>> if it's upstream reproducing this, but assuming this happens on
>>>> upstream, even ignoring everything else happening in the tlb flush
>>>> code, this sounds like purely introduced by userfaultfd_writeprotect()
>>>> vs userfaultfd_writeprotect() (since it's the only place changing
>>>> protection with mmap_sem for reading and note we already unmap and
>>>> flush tlb with mmap_sem for reading in MADV_DONTNEED/MADV_FREE clears
>>>> the dirty bit etc..). Flushing tlbs with mmap_sem for reading is
>>>> nothing new, the only new thing is the flush after wrprotect.
>>>>
>>>> So instead of altering any tlb flush code, would it be possible to
>>>> just stick to mmap_lock for reading and then serialize
>>>> userfaultfd_writeprotect() against itself with an additional
>>>> mm->mmap_wprotect_lock mutex? That'd be a very local change to
>>>> userfaultfd too.
>>>>
>>>> Can you look if the rule mmap_sem for reading plus a new
>>>> mm->mmap_wprotect_lock mutex or the mmap_sem for writing, whenever
>>>> wrprotecting ptes, is enough to comply with the current tlb flushing
>>>> code, so not to require any change non local to uffd (modulo the
>>>> additional mutex).
>>>
>>> So I did not fully understand your solution, but I took your point and
>>> looked again on similar cases. To be fair, despite my experience with these
>>> deferred TLB flushes as well as Peter Zijlstra’s great documentation, I keep
>>> getting confused (e.g., can’t we somehow combine tlb_flush_batched and
>>> tlb_flush_pending ?)
>>>
>>> As I said before, my initial scenario was wrong, and the problem is not
>>> userfaultfd_writeprotect() racing against itself. This one seems actually
>>> benign to me.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I do think there is a problem in change_protection_range().
>>> Specifically, see the aforementioned scenario of a race between
>>> madvise_dontneed_free() and userfaultfd_writeprotect().
>>>
>>> So an immediate solution for such a case can be resolve without holding
>>> mmap_lock for write, by just adding a test for mm_tlb_flush_nested() in
>>> change_protection_range():
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Only flush the TLB if we actually modified any entries
>>> * or if there are pending TLB flushes.
>>> */
>>> if (pages || mm_tlb_flush_nested(mm))
>>> flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
>>>
>>> To be fair, I am not confident I did not miss other problematic cases.
>>>
>>> But for now, this change, with the preserve_write change should address the
>>> immediate issues. Let me know if you agree.
>>>
>>> Let me know whether you agree.
>>
>> The problem starts in UFD, and is related to tlb flush. But its focal
>> point is in do_wp_page(). I'd suggest you look at function and see
>> what it does before and after the commits I listed, with the following
>> conditions
>>
>> PageAnon(), !PageKsm(), !PageSwapCache(), !pte_write(),
>> page_mapcount() = 1, page_count() > 1 or PageLocked()
>>
>> when it runs against the two UFD examples you listed.
>
> Thanks for your quick response. I wanted to write a lengthy response, but I
> do want to sleep on it. I presume page_count() > 1, since I have multiple
> concurrent page-faults on the same address in my test, but I will check.
>
> Anyhow, before I give a further response, I was just wondering - since you
> recently dealt with soft-dirty issue as I remember - isn't this problematic
> COW for non-COW page scenario, in which the copy races with writes to a page
> which is protected in the PTE but not in all TLB, also problematic for
> soft-dirty clearing?
Stupid me. You hold mmap_lock for write, so no, it cannot happen when clear
soft-dirty.
