Re: [PATCH 16/23] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Take care of UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP

[Peter Xu]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:06:39PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 3/22/21 5:49 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Firstly, pass the wp_copy variable into hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte() thoughout
> > the stack.  Then, apply the UFFD_WP bit if UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP is with
> > UFFDIO_COPY.  Introduce huge_pte_mkuffd_wp() for it.
> > 
> > Note that similar to how we've handled shmem, we'd better keep setting the
> > dirty bit even if UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP is provided, so that the core mm will
> > know this page contains valid data and never drop it.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with setting the dirty bit in this manner to be
> consistent.  But, since hugetlb pages are only managed by hugetlbfs, the
> core mm will not drop them.

Right, for this paragraph, how about I rephrase it as below?

  Hugetlb pages are only managed by hugetlbfs, so we're safe even without
  setting dirty bit in the huge pte if the page is installed as read-only.
  However we'd better still keep the dirty bit set for a read-only UFFDIO_COPY
  pte (when UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP bit is set), not only to match what we do with
  shmem, but also because the page does contain dirty data that the kernel just
  copied from the userspace.

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h |  5 +++++
> >  include/linux/hugetlb.h       |  6 ++++--
> >  mm/hugetlb.c                  | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> >  mm/userfaultfd.c              | 12 ++++++++----
> >  4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> > index 8e1e6244a89d..548212eccbd6 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> > @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ static inline pte_t huge_pte_mkdirty(pte_t pte)
> >  	return pte_mkdirty(pte);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline pte_t huge_pte_mkuffd_wp(pte_t pte)
> > +{
> > +	return pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> Just want to verify that userfaultfd wp support is only enabled for
> x86_64 now?  I only ask because there are arch specific hugetlb pte
> manipulation routines for some architectures. 

Yes it's x86_64 only, as we have:

	select HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP         if X86_64 && USERFAULTFD

Here the helper defines the huge pte uffd-wp bit to be the same as the pte
level bit, across all archs.  However should be fine since for any arch that
does not support uffd-wp, it'll be no-op:

static __always_inline pte_t pte_mkuffd_wp(pte_t pte)
{
	return pte;
}

Meanwhile it shouldn't be called anywhere as well.

Here I can also define __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTE_MKUFFD_WP, however I didn't do so
as I thought above should be enough.  Then we can define it when really
necessary.

> 
> >  static inline pte_t huge_pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
> >  {
> >  	return pte_modify(pte, newprot);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > index a7f7d5f328dc..ef8d2b8427b1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > @@ -141,7 +141,8 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, pte_t *dst_pte,
> >  				unsigned long dst_addr,
> >  				unsigned long src_addr,
> >  				enum mcopy_atomic_mode mode,
> > -				struct page **pagep);
> > +				struct page **pagep,
> > +				bool wp_copy);
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_USERFAULTFD */
> >  bool hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long from, long to,
> >  						struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > @@ -321,7 +322,8 @@ static inline int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >  						unsigned long dst_addr,
> >  						unsigned long src_addr,
> >  						enum mcopy_atomic_mode mode,
> > -						struct page **pagep)
> > +						struct page **pagep,
> > +						bool wp_copy)
> >  {
> >  	BUG();
> >  	return 0;
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index def2c7ddf3ae..f0e55b341ebd 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -4725,7 +4725,8 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >  			    unsigned long dst_addr,
> >  			    unsigned long src_addr,
> >  			    enum mcopy_atomic_mode mode,
> > -			    struct page **pagep)
> > +			    struct page **pagep,
> > +			    bool wp_copy)
> >  {
> >  	bool is_continue = (mode == MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE);
> >  	struct address_space *mapping;
> > @@ -4822,17 +4823,28 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >  		hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap(page, dst_vma, dst_addr);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/* For CONTINUE on a non-shared VMA, don't set VM_WRITE for CoW. */
> > -	if (is_continue && !vm_shared)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * For either: (1) CONTINUE on a non-shared VMA, or (2) UFFDIO_COPY
> > +	 * with wp flag set, don't set pte write bit.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (wp_copy || (is_continue && !vm_shared))
> >  		writable = 0;
> >  	else
> >  		writable = dst_vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE;
> >  
> >  	_dst_pte = make_huge_pte(dst_vma, page, writable);
> > -	if (writable)
> > -		_dst_pte = huge_pte_mkdirty(_dst_pte);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Always mark UFFDIO_COPY page dirty; note that this may not be
> > +	 * extremely important for hugetlbfs for now since swapping is not
> > +	 * supported, but we should still be clear in that this page cannot be
> > +	 * thrown away at will, even if write bit not set.
> 
> As mentioned earlier there should not be any issue with hugetlb pages
> being thrown away without dirty set.  Perhaps, the comment should
> reflect that this is mostly for consistency.

Yes, functional-wise it seems not necessary, however I also think it's a bit
more than being consistency with what we do with shmem (as also rephrased in
above commit message): UFFDIO_COPY page should be marked as dirty by the
definition of "dirty bit", imho, since the data is indeed dirty (kernel copied
that data from userspace)?

> 
> Note to self: this may help when I get back to hugetlb soft dirty
> support.
> 
> Other than that, patch looks good.

Thanks!

-- 
Peter Xu