> On Dec 22, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:40:32AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:26:22PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Using mmap_write_lock() was my initial fix and there was a strong pushback
>>>>> on this approach due to its potential impact on performance.
>>>>
>>>> From whom?
>>>>
>>>> Somebody who doesn't understand that correctness is more important
>>>> than performance? And that userfaultfd is not the most important part
>>>> of the system?
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, userfaultfd is CLEARLY BUGGY.
>>>>
>>>> Linus
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>> Nadav, for your patch (you might want to update the commit message).
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> While we are all here, there is also clear_soft_dirty() that could
>>> use a similar fix…
>>
>> Just an update as for why I have still not sent v2: I fixed
>> clear_soft_dirty(), created a reproducer, and the reproducer kept failing.
>>
>> So after some debugging, it appears that clear_refs_write() does not flush
>> the TLB. It indeed calls tlb_finish_mmu() but since 0758cd830494
>> ("asm-generic/tlb: avoid potential double flush”), tlb_finish_mmu() does not
>> flush the TLB since there is clear_refs_write() does not call to
>> __tlb_adjust_range() (unless there are nested TLBs are pending).
>
> Sorry Nadav, I assumed you knew this existing problem fixed by:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20201210121110.10094-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
Thanks, Yu! For some reason I assumed it was already upstreamed and did not
look back (yet if I was cc’d on v2…)
Yet, something still goes bad. Debugging.
