[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [rfc][patch] mm: dirty page accounting race fix
    On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:55:46PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

    > > - pte = page_check_address(page, mm, address, &ptl);
    > > + pte = page_check_address(page, mm, address, &ptl, 0);
    > > if (!pte)
    > > goto out;
    > >
    > >
    > I'm not against this if it really turns out to be the answer,
    > it's simple enough and it sounds like a very good find; but
    > I'm still not convinced that you've got to the bottom of it.
    > Am I confused, or is your "do_wp_page calls ptep_clear_flush_notify"
    > example a very bad one? The page it's dealing with there doesn't
    > go back into the page table (its COW does), and the dirty_accounting
    > case doesn't even get down there, it's dealt with in the reuse case
    > above, which uses ptep_set_access_flags. Now, I think that one may

    Oh you're right definitely. Thanks.

    Actually, the bug I am running into is not with a vanilla kernel...
    I am making several of my own required changes to solve other races
    I need to plug, so I'm sorry the changelog might be misleading...
    I have not actually reproduced a problem with the vanilla kernel.

    > well behave as you suggest on some arches (though it's extending
    > permissions not restricting them, so maybe not); but please check
    > that out and improve your example.
    > Even if it does, it's not clear to me that your fix is the answer.
    > That may well be because the whole of dirty page accounting grew too
    > subtle for me! But holding the page table lock on one pte of the
    > page doesn't guarantee much about the integrity of the whole dance:
    > do_wp_page does its set_page_dirty_balance for this case, you'd
    > need to spell out the bad sequence more to convince me.

    Hmm, no even in that case I think we get away with it because of
    the wait_on_page_locked which ensures clearing the page dirty
    bit before do_wp_page sets the page dirty...

    > Sorry, that may be a lot of work, to get it through my skull!
    > And I may be lazily asking you to do my thinking for me.

    Maybe I've found another one: ppc64's set_pte_at seems to clear
    the pte, and lots of pte accessors are implemented with set_pte_at.
    mprotect's modify_prot_commit for example.

    Even if I'm wrong and we happen to be safe everywhere, it seems
    really fragile to ask that no architectures ever allow transient
    !pte_present in cases where it matters, and no generic code
    emit the wrong sequence either. Or is there some reason I'm missing
    that makes this more robust?

    > But I got a bit distracted: mprotect's change_pte_range is
    > traditionally where the pte_modify operation has been split up into
    > stages on some arches, that really can be restricting permissions
    > and needs to tread carefully. Now I go to look there, I see its
    > /*
    > * Avoid taking write faults for pages we know to be
    > * dirty.
    > */
    > if (dirty_accountable && pte_dirty(ptent))
    > ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent);
    > and get rather worried: isn't that likely to be giving write permission
    > to a pte in a vma we are precisely taking write permission away from?
    > That's a different issue, of course; but perhaps it's even relevant.

    Hmm, vma_wants_writenotify is only true if VM_WRITE, and in that
    case we might be OK?

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-14 14:39    [W:0.022 / U:1.996 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site