Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

From: Nadav Amit
Date: Sun Jan 17 2021 - 05:15:48 EST

> On Jan 17, 2021, at 1:16 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:32:22PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 16, 2021, at 8:41 PM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:43:38PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:38:34PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 11:56 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:15:43AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>>> I will send an RFC soon for per-table deferred TLB flushes tracking.
>>>>>>> The basic idea is to save a generation in the page-struct that tracks
>>>>>>> when deferred PTE change took place, and track whenever a TLB flush
>>>>>>> completed. In addition, other users - such as mprotect - would use
>>>>>>> the tlb_gather interface.
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, due to limited space in page-struct this would only
>>>>>>> be possible for 64-bit (and my implementation is only for x86-64).
>>>>>> I don't want to discourage you but I don't think this would end up
>>>>>> well. PPC doesn't necessarily follow one-page-struct-per-table rule,
>>>>>> and I've run into problems with this before while trying to do
>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>> Discourage, discourage. Better now than later.
>>>>> It will be relatively easy to extend the scheme to be per-VMA instead of
>>>>> per-table for architectures that prefer it this way. It does require
>>>>> TLB-generation tracking though, which Andy only implemented for x86, so I
>>>>> will focus on x86-64 right now.
>>>> Can you remind me of what we're missing on arm64 in this area, please? I'm
>>>> happy to help get this up and running once you have something I can build
>>>> on.
>>> I noticed arm/arm64 don't support ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH.
>>> Would it be something worth pursuing? Arm has been using mm_cpumask,
>>> so it might not be too difficult I guess?
>> [ +Mel Gorman who implemented ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH ]
>> IIUC, there are at least two bugs in x86 implementation.
>> First, there is a missing memory barrier in tlbbatch_add_mm() between
>> inc_mm_tlb_gen() and the read of mm_cpumask().
> In arch_tlbbatch_add_mm()? inc_mm_tlb_gen() has builtin barrier as its
> comment says -- atomic update ops that return values are also full
> memory barriers.

Yes, you are correct.

>> Second, try_to_unmap_flush() clears flush_required after flushing. Another
>> thread can call set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() after the flush and before
>> flush_required is cleared, and the indication that a TLB flush is pending
>> can be lost.
> This isn't a problem either because flush_required is per thread.

Sorry, I meant mm->tlb_flush_batched . It is not per-thread.
flush_tlb_batched_pending() clears it after flush and indications that
set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() sets in between can be lost.

>> I am working on addressing these issues among others, but, as you already
>> saw, I am a bit slow.
>> On a different but related topic: Another thing that I noticed that Arm does
>> not do is batching TLB flushes across VMAs. Since Arm does not have its own
>> tlb_end_vma(), it uses the default tlb_end_vma(), which flushes each VMA
>> separately. Peter Zijlstra’s comment says that there are advantages in
>> flushing each VMA separately, but I am not sure it is better or intentional
>> (especially since x86 does not do so).
>> I am trying to remove the arch-specific tlb_end_vma() and have a config
>> option to control this behavior.
> One thing worth noting is not all arm/arm64 hw versions support ranges.
> (system_supports_tlb_range()). But IIUC what you are trying to do, this
> isn't a problem.

I just wanted to get rid of arch-specific tlb_start_vma() it in order to
cleanup the code (I am doing first the VMA-deferred tracking, as you asked).
While I was doing that, I noticed that Arm does per-VMA TLB flushes. I do
not know whether it is intentional, but it seems rather easy to get this
behavior unintentionally.