Currently, we don't enable writenotify when enabling userfaultfd-wp on a
shared writable mapping (for now only shmem and hugetlb).  The consequence
is that vma->vm_page_prot will still include write permissions, to be set
as default for all PTEs that get remapped (e.g., mprotect(), NUMA hinting,
page migration, ...).

So far, vma->vm_page_prot is assumed to be a safe default, meaning that we
only add permissions (e.g., mkwrite) but not remove permissions (e.g.,
wrprotect).  For example, when enabling softdirty tracking, we enable
writenotify.  With uffd-wp on shared mappings, that changed.  More details
on vma->vm_page_prot semantics were summarized in [1].

This is problematic for uffd-wp: we'd have to manually check for a uffd-wp
PTEs/PMDs and manually write-protect PTEs/PMDs, which is error prone. 
Prone to such issues is any code that uses vma->vm_page_prot to set PTE
permissions: primarily pte_modify() and mk_pte().

Instead, let's enable writenotify such that PTEs/PMDs/...  will be mapped
write-protected as default and we will only allow selected PTEs that are
definitely safe to be mapped without write-protection (see
can_change_pte_writable()) to be writable.  In the future, we might want
to enable write-bit recovery -- e.g., can_change_pte_writable() -- at more
locations, for example, also when removing uffd-wp protection.

This fixes two known cases:

(a) remove_migration_pte() mapping uffd-wp'ed PTEs writable, resulting
    in uffd-wp not triggering on write access.
(b) do_numa_page() / do_huge_pmd_numa_page() mapping uffd-wp'ed PTEs/PMDs
    writable, resulting in uffd-wp not triggering on write access.

Note that do_numa_page() / do_huge_pmd_numa_page() can be reached even
without NUMA hinting (which currently doesn't seem to be applicable to
shmem), for example, by using uffd-wp with a PROT_WRITE shmem VMA.  On
such a VMA, userfaultfd-wp is currently non-functional.

Note that when enabling userfaultfd-wp, there is no need to walk page
tables to enforce the new default protection for the PTEs: we know that
they cannot be uffd-wp'ed yet, because that can only happen after enabling
uffd-wp for the VMA in general.

Also note that this makes mprotect() on ranges with uffd-wp'ed PTEs not
accidentally set the write bit -- which would result in uffd-wp not
triggering on later write access.  This commit makes uffd-wp on shmem
behave just like uffd-wp on anonymous memory in that regard, even though,
mixing mprotect with uffd-wp is controversial.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/92173bad-caa3-6b43-9d1e-9a471fdbc184@redhat.com

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221209080912.7968-1-david@redhat.com
Fixes: b1f9e876 ("mm/uffd: enable write protection for shmem & hugetlbfs")
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Ives van Hoorne <ives@codesandbox.io>
Debugged-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>