lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mincore: make mincore() more conservative
On Wed 30-01-19 13:44:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>
> The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely
> clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was
> initially done) treated it as "page is available in page cache".
>
> That's potentially a problem, as that [in]directly exposes meta-information
> about pagecache / memory mapping state even about memory not strictly belonging
> to the process executing the syscall, opening possibilities for sidechannel
> attacks.
>
> Change the semantics of mincore() so that it only reveals pagecache information
> for non-anonymous mappings that belog to files that the calling process could
> (if it tried to) successfully open for writing.

I agree that this is a better way than the original 574823bfab82
("Change mincore() to count "mapped" pages rather than "cached" pages").
One thing is still not clear to me though. Is the new owner/writeable
check OK for the Netflix-like usecases? I mean does happycache have
appropriate access to the cache data? I have tried to re-read the
original thread but couldn't find any confirmation.

I nit below

> Originally-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Originally-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
> Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Cc: Kevin Easton <kevin@guarana.org>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>
> Cc: Daniel Gruss <daniel@gruss.cc>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

other than that looks good to me.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

If this still doesn't help happycache kind of workloads then we should
add a capability check IMO but this looks like a decent foundation to
me.

> ---
> mm/mincore.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mincore.c b/mm/mincore.c
> index 218099b5ed31..747a4907a3ac 100644
> --- a/mm/mincore.c
> +++ b/mm/mincore.c
> @@ -169,6 +169,14 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline bool can_do_mincore(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> + return vma_is_anonymous(vma) ||
> + (vma->vm_file &&
> + (inode_owner_or_capable(file_inode(vma->vm_file))
> + || inode_permission(file_inode(vma->vm_file), MAY_WRITE) == 0));
> +}

This is hard to read. Can we do
if (vma_is_anonymous(vma))
return true;
if (!vma->vm_file)
return false;
return inode_owner_or_capable(file_inode(vma->vm_file)) ||
inode_permission(file_inode(vma->vm_file), MAY_WRITE) == 0;

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 10:44    [W:0.188 / U:2.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site