Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: document new UFFDIO_POISON ioctl

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Axel,

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> This is a new feature recently added to the kernel. So, document the new
> ioctl the same way we do other UFFDIO_* ioctls.
> 
> Also note the corresponding new ioctl flag we can return in reponse to a
> UFFDIO_REGISTER call.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2 | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 112 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2 b/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> index 95d69f773..6b6980d4a 100644
> --- a/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> +++ b/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> @@ -380,6 +380,11 @@ operation is supported.
>  The
>  .B UFFDIO_CONTINUE
>  operation is supported.
> +.TP
> +.B 1 << _UFFDIO_POISON
> +The
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON
> +operation is supported.
>  .PP
>  This
>  .BR ioctl (2)
> @@ -890,6 +895,113 @@ The faulting process has exited at the time of a
>  .B UFFDIO_CONTINUE
>  operation.
>  .\"
> +.SS UFFDIO_POISON
> +(Since Linux 6.6.)
> +Mark an address range as "poisoned".
> +Future accesses to these addresses will raise a
> +.B SIGBUS
> +signal.
> +Unlike
> +.B MADV_HWPOISON
> +this works by installing page table entries,
> +rather than "really" poisoning the underlying physical pages.
> +This means it only affects this particular address space.
> +.PP
> +The
> +.I argp
> +argument is a pointer to a
> +.I uffdio_continue
> +structure as shown below:
> +.PP
> +.in +4n
> +.EX
> +struct uffdio_poison {
> +	struct uffdio_range range;
> +	                /* Range to install poison PTE markers in */
> +	__u64 mode;     /* Flags controlling the behavior of poison */
> +	__s64 updated;  /* Number of bytes poisoned, or negated error */
> +};
> +.EE
> +.in
> +.PP
> +The following value may be bitwise ORed in
> +.I mode
> +to change the behavior of the
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON
> +operation:
> +.TP
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON_MODE_DONTWAKE
> +Do not wake up the thread that waits for page-fault resolution.
> +.PP
> +The
> +.I updated
> +field is used by the kernel
> +to return the number of bytes that were actually poisoned,
> +or an error in the same manner as
> +.BR UFFDIO_COPY .
> +If the value returned in the
> +.I updated
> +field doesn't match the value that was specified in
> +.IR range.len ,
> +the operation fails with the error
> +.BR EAGAIN .
> +The
> +.I updated
> +field is output-only;
> +it is not read by the
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON
> +operation.
> +.PP
> +This
> +.BR ioctl (2)
> +operation returns 0 on success.
> +In this case,
> +the entire area was poisoned.
> +On error, \-1 is returned and
> +.I errno
> +is set to indicate the error.
> +Possible errors include:
> +.TP
> +.B EAGAIN
> +The number of bytes mapped
> +(i.e., the value returned in the
> +.I updated
> +field)
> +does not equal the value that was specified in the
> +.I range.len
> +field.
> +.TP
> +.B EINVAL
> +Either
> +.I range.start
> +or
> +.I range.len
> +was not a multiple of the system page size; or
> +.I range.len
> +was zero; or the range specified was invalid.
> +.TP
> +.B EINVAL
> +An invalid bit was specified in the
> +.I mode
> +field.
> +.TP
> +.B EEXIST

Any reasons for this order, or should we use alphabetic order?

Thanks,
Alex

> +One or more pages were already mapped in the given range.
> +.TP
> +.B ENOENT
> +The faulting process has changed its virtual memory layout simultaneously with
> +an outstanding
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON
> +operation.
> +.TP
> +.B ENOMEM
> +Allocating memory for page table entries failed.
> +.TP
> +.B ESRCH
> +The faulting process has exited at the time of a
> +.B UFFDIO_POISON
> +operation.
> +.\"
>  .SH RETURN VALUE
>  See descriptions of the individual operations, above.
>  .SH ERRORS
> -- 
> 2.42.0.609.gbb76f46606-goog
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature