mm/userfaultfd: enable writenotify while userfaultfd-wp is enabled for a VMA
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>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment