linux/mm/userfaultfd.c

587 lines
15 KiB

memcg: adjust to support new THP refcounting As with rmap, with new refcounting we cannot rely on PageTransHuge() to check if we need to charge size of huge page form the cgroup. We need to get information from caller to know whether it was mapped with PMD or PTE. We do uncharge when last reference on the page gone. At that point if we see PageTransHuge() it means we need to unchange whole huge page. The tricky part is partial unmap -- when we try to unmap part of huge page. We don't do a special handing of this situation, meaning we don't uncharge the part of huge page unless last user is gone or split_huge_page() is triggered. In case of cgroup memory pressure happens the partial unmapped page will be split through shrinker. This should be good enough. Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> Tested-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-01-15 16:52:20 -08:00
memcg: adjust to support new THP refcounting As with rmap, with new refcounting we cannot rely on PageTransHuge() to check if we need to charge size of huge page form the cgroup. We need to get information from caller to know whether it was mapped with PMD or PTE. We do uncharge when last reference on the page gone. At that point if we see PageTransHuge() it means we need to unchange whole huge page. The tricky part is partial unmap -- when we try to unmap part of huge page. We don't do a special handing of this situation, meaning we don't uncharge the part of huge page unless last user is gone or split_huge_page() is triggered. In case of cgroup memory pressure happens the partial unmapped page will be split through shrinker. This should be good enough. Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> Tested-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-01-15 16:52:20 -08:00
memcg: adjust to support new THP refcounting As with rmap, with new refcounting we cannot rely on PageTransHuge() to check if we need to charge size of huge page form the cgroup. We need to get information from caller to know whether it was mapped with PMD or PTE. We do uncharge when last reference on the page gone. At that point if we see PageTransHuge() it means we need to unchange whole huge page. The tricky part is partial unmap -- when we try to unmap part of huge page. We don't do a special handing of this situation, meaning we don't uncharge the part of huge page unless last user is gone or split_huge_page() is triggered. In case of cgroup memory pressure happens the partial unmapped page will be split through shrinker. This should be good enough. Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> Tested-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Acked-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-01-15 16:52:20 -08:00
mm, fs: get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* and page_cache_{get,release} macros PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} macros were introduced *long* time ago with promise that one day it will be possible to implement page cache with bigger chunks than PAGE_SIZE. This promise never materialized. And unlikely will. We have many places where PAGE_CACHE_SIZE assumed to be equal to PAGE_SIZE. And it's constant source of confusion on whether PAGE_CACHE_* or PAGE_* constant should be used in a particular case, especially on the border between fs and mm. Global switching to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE != PAGE_SIZE would cause to much breakage to be doable. Let's stop pretending that pages in page cache are special. They are not. The changes are pretty straight-forward: - <foo> << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> <foo>; - <foo> >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> <foo>; - PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} -> PAGE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN}; - page_cache_get() -> get_page(); - page_cache_release() -> put_page(); This patch contains automated changes generated with coccinelle using script below. For some reason, coccinelle doesn't patch header files. I've called spatch for them manually. The only adjustment after coccinelle is revert of changes to PAGE_CAHCE_ALIGN definition: we are going to drop it later. There are few places in the code where coccinelle didn't reach. I'll fix them manually in a separate patch. Comments and documentation also will be addressed with the separate patch. virtual patch @@ expression E; @@ - E << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) + E @@ expression E; @@ - E >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) + E @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT + PAGE_SHIFT @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_SIZE + PAGE_SIZE @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_MASK + PAGE_MASK @@ expression E; @@ - PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(E) + PAGE_ALIGN(E) @@ expression E; @@ - page_cache_get(E) + get_page(E) @@ expression E; @@ - page_cache_release(E) + put_page(E) Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-04-01 15:29:47 +03:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00
mm, fs: get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* and page_cache_{get,release} macros PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} macros were introduced *long* time ago with promise that one day it will be possible to implement page cache with bigger chunks than PAGE_SIZE. This promise never materialized. And unlikely will. We have many places where PAGE_CACHE_SIZE assumed to be equal to PAGE_SIZE. And it's constant source of confusion on whether PAGE_CACHE_* or PAGE_* constant should be used in a particular case, especially on the border between fs and mm. Global switching to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE != PAGE_SIZE would cause to much breakage to be doable. Let's stop pretending that pages in page cache are special. They are not. The changes are pretty straight-forward: - <foo> << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> <foo>; - <foo> >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> <foo>; - PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} -> PAGE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN}; - page_cache_get() -> get_page(); - page_cache_release() -> put_page(); This patch contains automated changes generated with coccinelle using script below. For some reason, coccinelle doesn't patch header files. I've called spatch for them manually. The only adjustment after coccinelle is revert of changes to PAGE_CAHCE_ALIGN definition: we are going to drop it later. There are few places in the code where coccinelle didn't reach. I'll fix them manually in a separate patch. Comments and documentation also will be addressed with the separate patch. virtual patch @@ expression E; @@ - E << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) + E @@ expression E; @@ - E >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) + E @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT + PAGE_SHIFT @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_SIZE + PAGE_SIZE @@ @@ - PAGE_CACHE_MASK + PAGE_MASK @@ expression E; @@ - PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(E) + PAGE_ALIGN(E) @@ expression E; @@ - page_cache_get(E) + get_page(E) @@ expression E; @@ - page_cache_release(E) + put_page(E) Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-04-01 15:29:47 +03:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00
userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy_atomic races If a process monitored with userfaultfd changes it's memory mappings or forks() at the same time as uffd monitor fills the process memory with UFFDIO_COPY, the actual creation of page table entries and copying of the data in mcopy_atomic may happen either before of after the memory mapping modifications and there is no way for the uffd monitor to maintain consistent view of the process memory layout. For instance, let's consider fork() running in parallel with userfaultfd_copy(): process | uffd monitor ---------------------------------+------------------------------ fork() | userfaultfd_copy() ... | ... dup_mmap() | down_read(mmap_sem) down_write(mmap_sem) | /* create PTEs, copy data */ dup_uffd() | up_read(mmap_sem) copy_page_range() | up_write(mmap_sem) | dup_uffd_complete() | /* notify monitor */ | If the userfaultfd_copy() takes the mmap_sem first, the new page(s) will be present by the time copy_page_range() is called and they will appear in the child's memory mappings. However, if the fork() is the first to take the mmap_sem, the new pages won't be mapped in the child's address space. If the pages are not present and child tries to access them, the monitor will get page fault notification and everything is fine. However, if the pages *are present*, the child can access them without uffd noticing. And if we copy them into child it'll see the wrong data. Since we are talking about background copy, we'd need to decide whether the pages should be copied or not regardless #PF notifications. Since userfaultfd monitor has no way to determine what was the order, let's disallow userfaultfd_copy in parallel with the non-cooperative events. In such case we return -EAGAIN and the uffd monitor can understand that userfaultfd_copy() clashed with a non-cooperative event and take an appropriate action. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527061324-19949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2018-06-07 17:09:25 -07:00