mm/userfaultfd: rely on vma->vm_page_prot in uffd_wp_range()
Patch series "mm: uffd-wp + change_protection() cleanups". Cleanup page protection handling in uffd-wp when calling change_protection() and improve unprotecting uffd=wp in private mappings, trying to set PTEs writable again if possible just like we do during mprotect() when upgrading write permissions. Make the change_protection() interface harder to get wrong :) I consider both pages primarily cleanups, although patch #1 fixes a corner case with uffd-wp and softdirty tracking for shmem. @Peter, please let me know if we should flag patch #1 as pure cleanup -- I have no idea how important softdirty tracking on shmem is. This patch (of 2): uffd_wp_range() currently calculates page protection manually using vm_get_page_prot(). This will ignore any other reason for active writenotify: one mechanism applicable to shmem is softdirty tracking. For example, the following sequence 1) Write to mapped shmem page 2) Clear softdirty 3) Register uffd-wp covering the mapped page 4) Unregister uffd-wp covering the mapped page 5) Write to page again will not set the modified page softdirty, because uffd_wp_range() will ignore that writenotify is required for softdirty tracking and simply map the page writable again using change_protection(). Similarly, instead of unregistering, protecting followed by un-protecting the page using uffd-wp would result in the same situation. Now that we enable writenotify whenever enabling uffd-wp on a VMA, vma->vm_page_prot will already properly reflect our requirements: the default is to write-protect all PTEs. However, for shared mappings we would now not remap the PTEs writable if possible when unprotecting, just like for private mappings (COW). To compensate, set MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE just like mprotect() does to try mapping individual PTEs writable. For private mappings, this change implies that we will now always try setting PTEs writable when un-protecting, just like when upgrading write permissions using mprotect(), which is an improvement. For shared mappings, we will only set PTEs writable if can_change_pte_writable()/can_change_pmd_writable() indicates that it's ok. For ordinary shmem, this will be the case when PTEs are dirty, which should usually be the case -- otherwise we could special-case shmem in can_change_pte_writable()/can_change_pmd_writable() easily, because shmem itself doesn't require writenotify. Note that hugetlb does not yet implement MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE, so we won't try setting PTEs writable when unprotecting or when unregistering uffd-wp. This can be added later on top by implementing MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE. While commit ffd05793 ("userfaultfd: wp: support write protection for userfault vma range") introduced that code, it should only be applicable to uffd-wp on shared mappings -- shmem (hugetlb does not support softdirty tracking). I don't think this corner cases justifies to cc stable. Let's just handle it correctly and prepare for change_protection() cleanups. [david@redhat.com: o need for additional harmless checks if we're wr-protecting either way] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/71412742-a71f-9c74-865f-773ad83db7a5@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221223155616.297723-1-david@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221223155616.297723-2-david@redhat.com Fixes: b1f9e876 ("mm/uffd: enable write protection for shmem & hugetlbfs") Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment