* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 9:04 [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl Jinjiang Tu
@ 2024-03-18 8:19 ` Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 9:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-18 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jinjiang Tu @ 2024-03-18 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm, david, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang, sunnanyong,
linux-mm
Sorry, the v3 tag is erroneous. This patch is the first version.
在 2024/3/18 17:04, Jinjiang Tu 写道:
> commit 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl") inherits
> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag when a task calls execve(). Howerver, it doesn't
> create the mm_slot, so ksmd will not try to scan this task.
>
> To fix it, allocate and add the mm_slot to ksm_mm_head in __bprm_mm_init()
> when the mm has MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag.
>
> Fixes: 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/exec.c | 4 ++++
> include/linux/ksm.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index ff6f26671cfc..00f40163cc12 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
> #include <linux/time_namespace.h>
> #include <linux/user_events.h>
> #include <linux/rseq.h>
> +#include <linux/ksm.h>
>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> @@ -267,6 +268,9 @@ static int __bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto err_free;
> }
>
> + if (ksm_execve(mm))
> + goto err;
> +
> /*
> * Place the stack at the largest stack address the architecture
> * supports. Later, we'll move this to an appropriate place. We don't
> diff --git a/include/linux/ksm.h b/include/linux/ksm.h
> index 401348e9f92b..7e2b1de3996a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ksm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ksm.h
> @@ -59,6 +59,14 @@ static inline int ksm_fork(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int ksm_execve(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + if (test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY, &mm->flags))
> + return __ksm_enter(mm);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static inline void ksm_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> if (test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags))
> @@ -107,6 +115,11 @@ static inline int ksm_fork(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int ksm_execve(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static inline void ksm_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 9:04 [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 8:19 ` Jinjiang Tu
@ 2024-03-18 9:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-18 10:52 ` Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand @ 2024-03-18 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jinjiang Tu, akpm, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang, sunnanyong,
linux-mm
On 18.03.24 10:04, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
> commit 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl") inherits
> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag when a task calls execve(). Howerver, it doesn't
> create the mm_slot, so ksmd will not try to scan this task.
>
> To fix it, allocate and add the mm_slot to ksm_mm_head in __bprm_mm_init()
> when the mm has MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag.
That would mean that 3c6f33b7273a is effectively ineffective for
fork+exec and only works with fork?
>
> Fixes: 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/exec.c | 4 ++++
> include/linux/ksm.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index ff6f26671cfc..00f40163cc12 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
> #include <linux/time_namespace.h>
> #include <linux/user_events.h>
> #include <linux/rseq.h>
> +#include <linux/ksm.h>
>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> @@ -267,6 +268,9 @@ static int __bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto err_free;
> }
>
> + if (ksm_execve(mm))
> + goto err;
> +
> /*
> * Place the stack at the largest stack address the architecture
> * supports. Later, we'll move this to an appropriate place. We don't
> diff --git a/include/linux/ksm.h b/include/linux/ksm.h
> index 401348e9f92b..7e2b1de3996a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ksm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ksm.h
> @@ -59,6 +59,14 @@ static inline int ksm_fork(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int ksm_execve(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + if (test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY, &mm->flags))
> + return __ksm_enter(mm);
As soon as we did the __ksm_enter(), we have to set MMF_VM_MERGEABLE. I
don't think it would be set right now, because:
mm_alloc()->mm_init() will initialize the flags using
mm->flags = mmf_init_flags(current->mm->flags);
Whereby MMF_INIT_MASK contains only MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY_MASK.
So we likely need a set_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags) here as well.
Otherwise ksm_exit() wouldn't clean up, and we might call __ksm_enter()
twice.
And now I wonder, when would be the right point to call __ksm_enter().
__mmput() calls ksm_exit(). But for example, if __bprm_mm_init() fails
after __ksm_enter(), we will only call mmdrop(), not cleaning up ... so
that looks wrong.
We would have to make sure we call __ksm_enter() only once we know that
callers will call mm_put(). that is the case once we return from
bprm_mm_init() with success.
Maybe move the ksm_execve() to bprm_mm_init(), adding a comment that
cleanup will only happen during mm_put(), so it's harder to mess up in
the future?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 9:36 ` David Hildenbrand
@ 2024-03-18 10:52 ` Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 10:54 ` David Hildenbrand
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jinjiang Tu @ 2024-03-18 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Hildenbrand, akpm, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang,
sunnanyong, linux-mm
在 2024/3/18 17:36, David Hildenbrand 写道:
> On 18.03.24 10:04, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
>> commit 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl") inherits
>> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag when a task calls execve(). Howerver, it doesn't
>> create the mm_slot, so ksmd will not try to scan this task.
>>
>> To fix it, allocate and add the mm_slot to ksm_mm_head in
>> __bprm_mm_init()
>> when the mm has MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag.
>
> That would mean that 3c6f33b7273a is effectively ineffective for
> fork+exec and only works with fork?
>
Yes. In my test case, parent process calls prctl with
PR_SET_MEMORY_MERGE, and then fork, execeve a new
process. The new process allocates 3 anon pages with same content and
loops infinitely. However, the 3 pages
are not merged.
>>
>> Fixes: 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl")
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/exec.c | 4 ++++
>> include/linux/ksm.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
>> index ff6f26671cfc..00f40163cc12 100644
>> --- a/fs/exec.c
>> +++ b/fs/exec.c
>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
>> #include <linux/time_namespace.h>
>> #include <linux/user_events.h>
>> #include <linux/rseq.h>
>> +#include <linux/ksm.h>
>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
>> @@ -267,6 +268,9 @@ static int __bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>> goto err_free;
>> }
>> + if (ksm_execve(mm))
>> + goto err;
>> +
>> /*
>> * Place the stack at the largest stack address the architecture
>> * supports. Later, we'll move this to an appropriate place. We
>> don't
>> diff --git a/include/linux/ksm.h b/include/linux/ksm.h
>> index 401348e9f92b..7e2b1de3996a 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/ksm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/ksm.h
>> @@ -59,6 +59,14 @@ static inline int ksm_fork(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> struct mm_struct *oldmm)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static inline int ksm_execve(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> +{
>> + if (test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY, &mm->flags))
>> + return __ksm_enter(mm);
>
> As soon as we did the __ksm_enter(), we have to set MMF_VM_MERGEABLE.
> I don't think it would be set right now, because:
>
> mm_alloc()->mm_init() will initialize the flags using
>
> mm->flags = mmf_init_flags(current->mm->flags);
>
> Whereby MMF_INIT_MASK contains only MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY_MASK.
>
>
> So we likely need a set_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags) here as
> well. Otherwise ksm_exit() wouldn't clean up, and we might call
> __ksm_enter() twice.
__ksm_enter() will set MMF_VM_MERGEABLE when it succeeds.
>
>
> And now I wonder, when would be the right point to call __ksm_enter().
>
> __mmput() calls ksm_exit(). But for example, if __bprm_mm_init() fails
> after __ksm_enter(), we will only call mmdrop(), not cleaning up ...
> so that looks wrong.
Yes, I forgot cleanup in error path. ksm_exit() should be called when
__bprm_mm_init() fails after __ksm_enter().
>
> We would have to make sure we call __ksm_enter() only once we know
> that callers will call mm_put(). that is the case once we return from
> bprm_mm_init() with success.
>
> Maybe move the ksm_execve() to bprm_mm_init(), adding a comment that
> cleanup will only happen during mm_put(), so it's harder to mess up in
> the future?
>
__ksm_enter() should be called under mmap write lock to avoid race with
ksmd. So we can't move ksm_execve() to bprm_mm_init().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 10:52 ` Jinjiang Tu
@ 2024-03-18 10:54 ` David Hildenbrand
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand @ 2024-03-18 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jinjiang Tu, akpm, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang, sunnanyong,
linux-mm
>>> +static inline int ksm_execve(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> +{
>>> + if (test_bit(MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY, &mm->flags))
>>> + return __ksm_enter(mm);
>>
>> As soon as we did the __ksm_enter(), we have to set MMF_VM_MERGEABLE.
>> I don't think it would be set right now, because:
>>
>> mm_alloc()->mm_init() will initialize the flags using
>>
>> mm->flags = mmf_init_flags(current->mm->flags);
>>
>> Whereby MMF_INIT_MASK contains only MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY_MASK.
>>
>>
>> So we likely need a set_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags) here as
>> well. Otherwise ksm_exit() wouldn't clean up, and we might call
>> __ksm_enter() twice.
>
> __ksm_enter() will set MMF_VM_MERGEABLE when it succeeds.
>
Ah, indeed!
>>
>>
>> And now I wonder, when would be the right point to call __ksm_enter().
>>
>> __mmput() calls ksm_exit(). But for example, if __bprm_mm_init() fails
>> after __ksm_enter(), we will only call mmdrop(), not cleaning up ...
>> so that looks wrong.
> Yes, I forgot cleanup in error path. ksm_exit() should be called when
> __bprm_mm_init() fails after __ksm_enter().
>>
>> We would have to make sure we call __ksm_enter() only once we know
>> that callers will call mm_put(). that is the case once we return from
>> bprm_mm_init() with success.
>>
>> Maybe move the ksm_execve() to bprm_mm_init(), adding a comment that
>> cleanup will only happen during mm_put(), so it's harder to mess up in
>> the future?
>>
> __ksm_enter() should be called under mmap write lock to avoid race with
> ksmd. So we can't move ksm_execve() to bprm_mm_init().
Makes sense. We have to be careful that this won't silently break in the
future. Better add some comment as well.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 9:04 [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 8:19 ` Jinjiang Tu
2024-03-18 9:36 ` David Hildenbrand
@ 2024-03-18 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-18 10:54 ` Jinjiang Tu
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand @ 2024-03-18 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jinjiang Tu, akpm, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang, sunnanyong,
linux-mm
On 18.03.24 10:04, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
> commit 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl") inherits
> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag when a task calls execve(). Howerver, it doesn't
> create the mm_slot, so ksmd will not try to scan this task.
>
> To fix it, allocate and add the mm_slot to ksm_mm_head in __bprm_mm_init()
> when the mm has MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag.
>
> Fixes: 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
> ---
Can we also please extend the KSM selftest?
tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
We do have test_prctl_fork_exec(), but in ksm_fork_exec_child() we only
test if the flag is set, not if de-duplication using the ksm daemon
actually works.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/ksm: fix ksm exec support for prctl
2024-03-18 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
@ 2024-03-18 10:54 ` Jinjiang Tu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jinjiang Tu @ 2024-03-18 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Hildenbrand, akpm, shr, hannes, riel, wangkefeng.wang,
sunnanyong, linux-mm
在 2024/3/18 17:59, David Hildenbrand 写道:
> On 18.03.24 10:04, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
>> commit 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl") inherits
>> MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag when a task calls execve(). Howerver, it doesn't
>> create the mm_slot, so ksmd will not try to scan this task.
>>
>> To fix it, allocate and add the mm_slot to ksm_mm_head in
>> __bprm_mm_init()
>> when the mm has MMF_VM_MERGE_ANY flag.
>>
>> Fixes: 3c6f33b7273a ("mm/ksm: support fork/exec for prctl")
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>
> Can we also please extend the KSM selftest?
> tools/testing/selftests/mm/ksm_functional_tests.c
>
> We do have test_prctl_fork_exec(), but in ksm_fork_exec_child() we
> only test if the flag is set, not if de-duplication using the ksm
> daemon actually works.
>
OK, I will try to extend the selftest.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread