Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared

2019-10-10 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:42:46PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> When we tested pmdk unit test [1] vmmalloc_fork TEST3 on arm64 guest, there
> will be a double page fault in __copy_from_user_inatomic of cow_user_page.
> 
> To reproduce the bug, the cmd is as follows after you deployed everything:
> make -C src/test/vmmalloc_fork/ TEST_TIME=60m check
> 
> 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):
> [9b007000] pgd=00023d4f8003, pud=00023da9b003,
>pmd=00023d4b3003, pte=36298607bd3
> 
> 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 fixes it by calling pte_mkyoung. Also, the parameter is
> changed because vmf should be passed to cow_user_page()
> 
> Add a WARN_ON_ONCE when __copy_from_user_inatomic() returns error
> in case there can be some obscure use-case (by Kirill).
> 
> [1] https://github.com/pmem/pmdk/tree/master/src/test/vmmalloc_fork
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jia He 
> Reported-by: Yibo Cai 
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas 
> Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov 

My reviewed-by still stands. Thanks.

-- 
Catalin


[PATCH v11 4/4] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared

2019-10-09 Thread Jia He
When we tested pmdk unit test [1] vmmalloc_fork TEST3 on arm64 guest, there
will be a double page fault in __copy_from_user_inatomic of cow_user_page.

To reproduce the bug, the cmd is as follows after you deployed everything:
make -C src/test/vmmalloc_fork/ TEST_TIME=60m check

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):
[9b007000] pgd=00023d4f8003, pud=00023da9b003,
   pmd=00023d4b3003, pte=36298607bd3

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 fixes it by calling pte_mkyoung. Also, the parameter is
changed because vmf should be passed to cow_user_page()

Add a WARN_ON_ONCE when __copy_from_user_inatomic() returns error
in case there can be some obscure use-case (by Kirill).

[1] https://github.com/pmem/pmdk/tree/master/src/test/vmmalloc_fork

Signed-off-by: Jia He 
Reported-by: Yibo Cai 
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas 
Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov 
---
 mm/memory.c | 104 
 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index b1ca51a079f2..b6a5d6a08438 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -118,6 +118,18 @@ int randomize_va_space __read_mostly =
2;
 #endif
 
+#ifndef arch_faults_on_old_pte
+static inline bool arch_faults_on_old_pte(void)
+{
+   /*
+* Those arches which don't have hw access flag feature need to
+* implement their own helper. By default, "true" means pagefault
+* will be hit on old pte.
+*/
+   return true;
+}
+#endif
+
 static int __init disable_randmaps(char *s)
 {
randomize_va_space = 0;
@@ -2145,32 +2157,82 @@ 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 bool cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src,
+struct vm_fault *vmf)
 {
+   bool ret;
+   void *kaddr;
+   void __user *uaddr;
+   bool force_mkyoung;
+   struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
+   struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
+   unsigned long addr = vmf->address;
+
debug_dma_assert_idle(src);
 
+   if (likely(src)) {
+   copy_user_highpage(dst, src, addr, vma);
+   return true;
+   }
+
/*
 * If the source page was a PFN mapping, we don't have
 * a "struct page" for it. We do a best-effort copy by
 * just copying from the original user address. If that
 * fails, we just zero-fill it. Live with it.
 */
-   if (unlikely(!src)) {
-   void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(dst);
-   void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(va & PAGE_MASK);
+   kaddr = kmap_atomic(dst);
+   uaddr = (void __user *)(addr & PAGE_MASK);
+
+   /*
+* On architectures with software "accessed" bits, we would
+* take a double page fault, so mark it accessed here.
+*/
+   force_mkyoung = arch_faults_on_old_pte() && !pte_young(vmf->orig_pte);
+   if (force_mkyoung) {
+   pte_t entry;
+
+   vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, vmf->pmd, addr, >ptl);
+   if (!likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
+   /*
+* Other thread has already handled the fault
+* and we don't need to do anything. If it's
+* not the case, the fault will be triggered
+* again on the same address.
+*/
+   ret = false;
+   goto pte_unlock;
+   }
 
+   entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
+   if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, vmf->pte, entry, 0))
+   update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, vmf->pte);
+   }
+
+   /*
+* 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.
+*/
+   if