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

The keypoint is: we don't always have a hardware-managed access flag on
arm64.

The root cause is in copy_one_pte, it will clear the PTE_AF for COW
pages. Generally, when it is accessed by user, the COW pages will be set
as accessed(PTE_AF bit on arm64) by hardware if hardware feature is
supported. But on some arm64 platforms, the PTE_AF needs to be set by
software.

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 | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index e2bb51b6242e..b1f9ace2e943 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -2140,7 +2140,8 @@ 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)
 {
        debug_dma_assert_idle(src);
 
@@ -2152,20 +2153,30 @@ 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 *)(vmf->address & 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. If PTE_AF is cleared on arm64, it might
+                * cause double page fault here. so makes pte young here
                 */
+               if (!pte_young(vmf->orig_pte)) {
+                       entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
+                       if (ptep_set_access_flags(vmf->vma, vmf->address,
+                               vmf->pte, entry, vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE))
+                               update_mmu_cache(vmf->vma, vmf->address,
+                                               vmf->pte);
+               }
+
                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, vmf->address, vmf->vma);
 }
 
 static gfp_t __get_fault_gfp_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
@@ -2318,7 +2329,7 @@ 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

Reply via email to