On 10.11.22 21:31, Peter Xu wrote:
Ives van Hoorne from codesandbox.io reported an issue regarding possible
data loss of uffd-wp when applied to memfds on heavily loaded systems. The
sympton is some read page got data mismatch from the snapshot child VMs.
Here I can also reproduce with a Rust reproducer that was provided by Ives
that keeps taking snapshot of a 256MB VM, on a 32G system when I initiate
80 instances I can trigger the issues in ten minutes.
It turns out that we got some pages write-through even if uffd-wp is
applied to the pte.
The problem is, when removing migration entries, we didn't really worry
about write bit as long as we know it's not a write migration entry. That
may not be true, for some memory types (e.g. writable shmem) mk_pte can
return a pte with write bit set, then to recover the migration entry to its
original state we need to explicit wr-protect the pte or it'll has the
write bit set if it's a read migration entry.
For uffd it can cause write-through. I didn't verify, but I think it'll be
the same for mprotect()ed pages and after migration we can miss the sigbus
instead.
I don't think so. mprotect() handling relies on vma->vm_page_prot, which
is supposed to do the right thing. E.g., map the pte protnone without
VM_READ/VM_WRITE/....
The relevant code on uffd was introduced in the anon support, which is
commit f45ec5ff16a7 ("userfaultfd: wp: support swap and page migration",
2020-04-07). However anon shouldn't suffer from this problem because anon
should already have the write bit cleared always, so that may not be a
proper Fixes target. To satisfy the need on the backport, I'm attaching
the Fixes tag to the uffd-wp shmem support. Since no one had issue with
mprotect, so I assume that's also the kernel version we should start to
backport for stable, and we shouldn't need to worry before that.
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: b1f9e876862d ("mm/uffd: enable write protection for shmem & hugetlbfs")
Reported-by: Ives van Hoorne <ives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/migrate.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index dff333593a8a..8b6351c08c78 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -213,8 +213,14 @@ static bool remove_migration_pte(struct folio *folio,
pte = pte_mkdirty(pte);
if (is_writable_migration_entry(entry))
pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte, vma);
- else if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pvmw.pte))
+ else
+ /* NOTE: mk_pte can have write bit set */
+ pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
Any particular reason why not to simply glue this to pte_swp_uffd_wp(),
because only that needs special care:
if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pvmw.pte)) {
pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
}
And that would match what actually should have been done in commit
f45ec5ff16a7 -- only special-case uffd-wp.
Note that I think there are cases where we have a PTE that was
!writable, but after migration we can map it writable.
BTW, does unuse_pte() need similar care?
new_pte = pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot));
if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pte))
new_pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(new_pte);
set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, new_pte);
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
