Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 5/5] x86: check VM_DEAD flag in page fault

[Yang Shi]

On 7/2/18 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-07-18 10:24:27, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On 7/2/18 6:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 02-07-18 15:33:11, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > > On 02/07/2018 14:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 02-07-18 14:26:09, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > > > > On 02/07/2018 14:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > We already do have a model for that. Have a look at MMF_UNSTABLE.
> > > > > > MMF_UNSTABLE is a mm's flag, here this is a VMA's flag which is checked.
> > > > > Yeah, and we have the VMA ready for all places where we do check the
> > > > > flag. check_stable_address_space can be made to get vma rather than mm.
> > > > Yeah, this would have been more efficient to check that flag at the beginning
> > > > of the page fault handler rather than the end, but this way it will be easier
> > > > to handle the speculative page fault too ;)
> > > The thing is that it doesn't really need to be called earlier. You are
> > > not risking data corruption on file backed mappings.
> > OK, I just think it could save a few cycles to check the flag earlier.
> This should be an extremely rare case. Just think about it. It should
> only ever happen when an access races with munmap which itself is
> questionable if not an outright bug.
>
> > If nobody think it is necessary, we definitely could re-use
> > check_stable_address_space(),
> If we really need this whole VM_DEAD thing then it should be better
> handled at the same place rather than some ad-hoc places.
>
> > just return VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV for VM_DEAD vma,
> > and check for both shared and non-shared.
> Why would you even care about shared mappings?

Just thought about we are dealing with VM_DEAD, which means the vma will 
be tore down soon regardless it is shared or non-shared.

MMF_UNSTABLE doesn't care about !shared case.