Skip to content
Commit 76aefad6 authored by Peter Xu's avatar Peter Xu Committed by akpm
Browse files

mm/mprotect: fix soft-dirty check in can_change_pte_writable()

Patch series "mm/mprotect: Fix soft-dirty checks", v4.


This patch (of 3):

The check wanted to make sure when soft-dirty tracking is enabled we won't
grant write bit by accident, as a page fault is needed for dirty tracking.
The intention is correct but we didn't check it right because
VM_SOFTDIRTY set actually means soft-dirty tracking disabled.  Fix it.

There's another thing tricky about soft-dirty is that, we can't check the
vma flag !(vma_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY) directly but only check it after we
checked CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY because otherwise VM_SOFTDIRTY will be
defined as zero, and !(vma_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY) will constantly return
true.  To avoid misuse, introduce a helper for checking whether vma has
soft-dirty tracking enabled.

We can easily verify this with any exclusive anonymous page, like program
below:

=======8<======
  #include <stdio.h>
  #include <unistd.h>
  #include <stdlib.h>
  #include <assert.h>
  #include <inttypes.h>
  #include <stdint.h>
  #include <sys/types.h>
  #include <sys/mman.h>
  #include <sys/types.h>
  #include <sys/stat.h>
  #include <unistd.h>
  #include <fcntl.h>
  #include <stdbool.h>

  #define BIT_ULL(nr)                   (1ULL << (nr))
  #define PM_SOFT_DIRTY                 BIT_ULL(55)

  unsigned int psize;
  char *page;

  uint64_t pagemap_read_vaddr(int fd, void *vaddr)
  {
      uint64_t value;
      int ret;

      ret = pread(fd, &value, sizeof(uint64_t),
                  ((uint64_t)vaddr >> 12) * sizeof(uint64_t));
      assert(ret == sizeof(uint64_t));

      return value;
  }

  void clear_refs_write(void)
  {
      int fd = open("/proc/self/clear_refs", O_RDWR);

      assert(fd >= 0);
      write(fd, "4", 2);
      close(fd);
  }

  #define  check_soft_dirty(str, expect)  do {                            \
          bool dirty = pagemap_read_vaddr(fd, page) & PM_SOFT_DIRTY;      \
          if (dirty != expect) {                                          \
              printf("ERROR: %s, soft-dirty=%d (expect: %d)
", str, dirty, expect); \
              exit(-1);                                                   \
          }                                                               \
  } while (0)

  int main(void)
  {
      int fd = open("/proc/self/pagemap", O_RDONLY);

      assert(fd >= 0);
      psize = getpagesize();
      page = mmap(NULL, psize, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
                  MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
      assert(page != MAP_FAILED);

      *page = 1;
      check_soft_dirty("Just faulted in page", 1);
      clear_refs_write();
      check_soft_dirty("Clear_refs written", 0);
      mprotect(page, psize, PROT_READ);
      check_soft_dirty("Marked RO", 0);
      mprotect(page, psize, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
      check_soft_dirty("Marked RW", 0);
      *page = 2;
      check_soft_dirty("Wrote page again", 1);

      munmap(page, psize);
      close(fd);
      printf("Test passed.
");

      return 0;
  }
=======8<======

Here we attach a Fixes to commit 64fe24a3 only for easy tracking, as
this patch won't apply to a tree before that point.  However the commit
wasn't the source of problem, but instead 64e45507.  It's just that
after 64fe24a3 anonymous memory will also suffer from this problem
with mprotect().

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220725142048.30450-1-peterx@redhat.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220725142048.30450-2-peterx@redhat.com


Fixes: 64e45507 ("mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs after VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared")
Fixes: 64fe24a3 ("mm/mprotect: try avoiding write faults for exclusive anonymous pages when changing protection")
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDavid Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
parent 68aaee14
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment