Re: [PATCH 10/26] x86, pkeys: notify userspace about protection key faults

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:

> On 09/25/2015 11:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
> ...
> >> Since follow_pte() fails for all huge
> >> pages, it just falls back to pulling the protection key out of the VMA,
> >> which _does_ work for huge pages.
> > 
> > That might be true for explicit hugetlb vmas, but what about transparent hugepages 
> > that can show up in regular vmas?
> 
> All PTEs (large or small) established under a given VMA have the same
> protection key. [...]

So a 'pte' is only small. The 'large' thing is called a pmd. So follow_pte() is 
not adequate. But with that removed everything should be fine as the vma 
(protection) flags are size independent.

> So I think it's safe to rely on the VMA entirely.  Well, as least as safe as the 
> PTE.  It's definitely a wee bit racy, which I'll elaborate on when I repost the 
> patches.

So the race I can see is wrt. mprotect(), and we should fix that, because the 
existing method of recovering the 'page fault reason', error_code, is not racy - 
so the extension of it (the protection key) should not be racy either.

By the time user-space processes the signal we might race with other threads, but 
at least the fault-address/error-reason information itself should be coherent.

This can be solved by getting the protection key while still under the down_read() 
of the vma - instead of your current solution of a second find_vma().

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>