Re: [GIT PULL] x86/shstk for 6.4

Linus Torvalds
2023-05-12T21:55:27Z

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:34 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Were you really thinking of mm->count==1, or did you mean
> mm->mm_users==1?

Yeah, I meant mm_users.

And I was thinking that if it is 1, then it is stable - kind of like
how we do our optimization with file descriptors.

But you're right to worry about possibly other users incrementing the
mm_users count somehow - or just using "mmgrab()" to not increment it,
but be able to still fault on it etc.

> There's always a race there because mm->mm_users can always get bumped
> after the fork()er checks it.

Ugh. I was assuming that if they don't already have a reference to the
mm, they can't get one (becasue the '1' comes from 'current->mm', and
nobody else has that mm).

But maybe that's just not true. Looking around, we have things like

pages->source_mm = current->mm;
mmgrab(pages->source_mm);

that creates a ref to the mm with a grab, and then later it gets used.

So maybe the "no races can happen" is limited to *both* mm_users and
mm_count being 1. What would increment it in that case, when 'current'
is obviously busy forking?

That "both are one" might still be the common case for fork(). Hmm?

Linus