On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:19:14PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> When we tested pmdk unit test [1] vmmalloc_fork TEST1 in arm64 guest, there
> will be a double page fault in __copy_from_user_inatomic of cow_user_page.
> 
> Below call trace is from arm64 do_page_fault for debugging purpose
> [  110.016195] Call trace:
> [  110.016826]  do_page_fault+0x5a4/0x690
> [  110.017812]  do_mem_abort+0x50/0xb0
> [  110.018726]  el1_da+0x20/0xc4
> [  110.019492]  __arch_copy_from_user+0x180/0x280
> [  110.020646]  do_wp_page+0xb0/0x860
> [  110.021517]  __handle_mm_fault+0x994/0x1338
> [  110.022606]  handle_mm_fault+0xe8/0x180
> [  110.023584]  do_page_fault+0x240/0x690
> [  110.024535]  do_mem_abort+0x50/0xb0
> [  110.025423]  el0_da+0x20/0x24
> 
> The pte info before __copy_from_user_inatomic is (PTE_AF is cleared):
> [ffff9b007000] pgd=000000023d4f8003, pud=000000023da9b003, 
> pmd=000000023d4b3003, pte=360000298607bd3
> 
> As told by Catalin: "On arm64 without hardware Access Flag, copying from
> user will fail because the pte is old and cannot be marked young. So we
> always end up with zeroed page after fork() + CoW for pfn mappings. we
> don't always have a hardware-managed access flag on arm64."
> 
> This patch fix it by calling pte_mkyoung. Also, the parameter is
> changed because vmf should be passed to cow_user_page()
> 
> [1] https://github.com/pmem/pmdk/tree/master/src/test/vmmalloc_fork
> 
> Reported-by: Yibo Cai <yibo....@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin...@arm.com>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index e2bb51b6242e..d2c130a5883b 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,13 @@ int randomize_va_space __read_mostly =
>                                       2;
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifndef arch_faults_on_old_pte
> +static inline bool arch_faults_on_old_pte(void)
> +{
> +     return false;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>  static int __init disable_randmaps(char *s)
>  {
>       randomize_va_space = 0;
> @@ -2140,8 +2147,12 @@ static inline int pte_unmap_same(struct mm_struct *mm, 
> pmd_t *pmd,
>       return same;
>  }
>  
> -static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src, 
> unsigned long va, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src,
> +                              struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  {
> +     struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> +     unsigned long addr = vmf->address;
> +
>       debug_dma_assert_idle(src);
>  
>       /*
> @@ -2152,20 +2163,34 @@ static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, 
> struct page *src, unsigned lo
>        */
>       if (unlikely(!src)) {
>               void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(dst);
> -             void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(va & PAGE_MASK);
> +             void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(addr & PAGE_MASK);
> +             pte_t entry;
>  
>               /*
>                * This really shouldn't fail, because the page is there
>                * in the page tables. But it might just be unreadable,
>                * in which case we just give up and fill the result with
> -              * zeroes.
> +              * zeroes. On architectures with software "accessed" bits,
> +              * we would take a double page fault here, so mark it
> +              * accessed here.
>                */
> +             if (arch_faults_on_old_pte() && !pte_young(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> +                     spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> +                     if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
> +                             entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
> +                             if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr,
> +                                                       vmf->pte, entry, 0))
> +                                     update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, vmf->pte);
> +                     }

I don't follow.

So if pte has changed under you, you don't set the accessed bit, but never
the less copy from the user.

What makes you think it will not trigger the same problem?

I think we need to make cow_user_page() fail in this case and caller --
wp_page_copy() -- return zero. If the fault was solved by other thread, we
are fine. If not userspace would re-fault on the same address and we will
handle the fault from the second attempt.

> +                     spin_unlock(vmf->ptl);
> +             }
> +
>               if (__copy_from_user_inatomic(kaddr, uaddr, PAGE_SIZE))
>                       clear_page(kaddr);
>               kunmap_atomic(kaddr);
>               flush_dcache_page(dst);
>       } else
> -             copy_user_highpage(dst, src, va, vma);
> +             copy_user_highpage(dst, src, addr, vma);
>  }
>  
>  static gfp_t __get_fault_gfp_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> @@ -2318,7 +2343,7 @@ static vm_fault_t wp_page_copy(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>                               vmf->address);
>               if (!new_page)
>                       goto oom;
> -             cow_user_page(new_page, old_page, vmf->address, vma);
> +             cow_user_page(new_page, old_page, vmf);
>       }
>  
>       if (mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay(new_page, mm, GFP_KERNEL, &memcg, 
> false))
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

Reply via email to