Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: Avoid live-lock in search_ioctl() on hardware with sub-page faults

Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-11-27T18:08:10Z

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 4:21 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 01:39:58PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 4:52 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:06 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > If we know that the arch copy_to_user() has an error of say maximum 16
> > > > bytes (or 15 rather on arm64), we can instead get fault_in_writeable()
> > > > to probe the first 16 bytes rather than 1.
> > >
> > > That isn't going to help one bit: [raw_]copy_to_user() is allowed to
> > > copy as little or as much as it wants as long as it follows the rules
> > > documented in include/linux/uaccess.h:
> > >
> > > [] If copying succeeds, the return value must be 0. If some data cannot be
> > > [] fetched, it is permitted to copy less than had been fetched; the only
> > > [] hard requirement is that not storing anything at all (i.e. returning size)
> > > [] should happen only when nothing could be copied. In other words, you don't
> > > [] have to squeeze as much as possible - it is allowed, but not necessary.
> > >
> > > When fault_in_writeable() tells us that an address range is accessible
> > > in principle, that doesn't mean that copy_to_user() will allow us to
> > > access it in arbitrary chunks. It's also not the case that
> > > fault_in_writeable(addr, size) is always followed by
> > > copy_to_user(addr, ..., size) for the exact same address range, not
> > > even in this case.
> > >
> > > These alignment restrictions have nothing to do with page or sub-page faults.
> > >
> > > I'm also fairly sure that passing in an unaligned buffer will send
> > > search_ioctl into an endless loop on architectures with copy_to_user()
> > > alignment restrictions; there don't seem to be any buffer alignment
> > > checks.
> >
> > Let me retract that ...
> >
> > The description in include/linux/uaccess.h leaves out permissible
> > reasons for fetching/storing less than requested. Thinking about it, if
> > the address range passed to one of the copy functions includes an
> > address that faults, it kind of makes sense to allow the copy function
> > to stop short instead of copying every last byte right up to the address
> > that fails.
> >
> > If that's the only reason, then it would be great to have that included
> > in the description. And then we can indeed deal with the alignment
> > effects in fault_in_writeable().
>
> Ah, I started replying last night, sent it today without seeing your
> follow-up.
>
> > > > I attempted the above here and works ok:
> > > >
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=devel/btrfs-live-lock-fix
> > > >
> > > > but too late to post it this evening, I'll do it in the next day or so
> > > > as an alternative to this series.
> >
> > I've taken a quick look. Under the assumption that alignment effects
> > are tied to page / sub-page faults, I think we can really solve this
> > generically as Willy has proposed.
>
> I think Willy's proposal stopped at the page boundary, it should go
> beyond.
>
> > Maybe as shown below; no need for arch-specific code.
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index 2c51e9748a6a..a9b3d916b625 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -1658,6 +1658,8 @@ static long __get_user_pages_locked(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > }
> > #endif /* !CONFIG_MMU */
> >
> > +#define SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE 16
> > +
> > /**
> > * fault_in_writeable - fault in userspace address range for writing
> > * @uaddr: start of address range
> > @@ -1673,8 +1675,19 @@ size_t fault_in_writeable(char __user *uaddr, size_t size)
> > if (unlikely(size == 0))
> > return 0;
> > if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(uaddr)) {
> > + if (SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE &&
> > + !IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)uaddr, SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE)) {
> > + end = PTR_ALIGN(uaddr, SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE);
> > + if (end - uaddr < size) {
> > + if (unlikely(__put_user(0, uaddr) != 0))
> > + return size;
> > + uaddr = end;
> > + if (unlikely(!end))
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + }
> > if (unlikely(__put_user(0, uaddr) != 0))
> > - return size;
> > + goto out;
> > uaddr = (char __user *)PAGE_ALIGN((unsigned long)uaddr);
> > }
> > end = (char __user *)PAGE_ALIGN((unsigned long)start + size);
>
> That's similar, somehow, to the arch-specific probing in one of my
> patches: [1]. We could do the above if we can guarantee that the maximum
> error margin in copy_to_user() is smaller than SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE. For
> arm64 copy_to_user(), it is fine, but for copy_from_user(), if we ever
> need to handle fault_in_readable(), it isn't (on arm64 up to 64 bytes
> even if aligned: reads of large blocks are done in 4 * 16 loads, and if
> one of them fails e.g. because of the 16-byte sub-page fault, no write
> is done, hence such larger than 16 delta).
>
> If you want something in the generic fault_in_writeable(), we probably
> need a loop over UACCESS_MAX_WRITE_ERROR in SUBPAGE_FAULT_SIZE
> increments. But I thought I'd rather keep this in the arch-specific code.

I see, that's even crazier than I'd thought. The looping / probing is
still pretty generic, so I'd still consider putting it in the generic
code.

We also still have fault_in_safe_writeable which is more difficult to
fix, and fault_in_readable which we don't want to leave behind broken,
either.

> Of course, the above fault_in_writeable() still needs the btrfs
> search_ioctl() counterpart to change the probing on the actual fault
> address or offset.

Yes, but that change is relatively simple and it eliminates the need
for probing the entire buffer, so it's a good thing. Maybe you want to
add this though:

--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -2202,3 +2202,3 @@ static noinline int search_ioctl(struct inode *inode,
unsigned long sk_offset = 0;
- char __user *fault_in_addr;
+ char __user *fault_in_addr, *end;

@@ -2230,6 +2230,6 @@ static noinline int search_ioctl(struct inode *inode,
fault_in_addr = ubuf;
+ end = ubuf + *buf_size;
while (1) {
ret = -EFAULT;
- if (fault_in_writeable(fault_in_addr,
- *buf_size - (fault_in_addr - ubuf)))
+ if (fault_in_writeable(fault_in_addr, end - fault_in_addr))
break;

> In the general case (uaccess error margin larger), I'm not entirely
> convinced we can skip the check if PAGE_ALIGNED(uaddr).

Yes, the loop can span multiple sub-page error domains, at least in
the read case, so it needs to happen even for page-aligned addresses.

> I should probably get this logic through CBMC (or TLA+), I can't think it
> through.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=devel/btrfs-live-lock-fix&id=af7e96d9e9537d9f9cc014f388b7b2bb4a5bc343
>
> --
> Catalin
>

Thanks,
Andreas