From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB30C282CA for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A953217FA for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:36:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549953412; bh=7lELHqEozBe706CdEhvF9P6fdK70nzkszgw7c7Xiom8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=KuKMZWQeetq9VcATxzko6Eq80DFGuYl2xSiM+zpMxLrUnxFIOrQv+ggK4BXjrVHY1 wG3pGVCCWTgX5DARGyDKE0nbLX35YxcpgBxTayYB+JzsyFduMYvrdW9ZnP6EvSrzMi c9VBlr9zBQemCv8Mq9JmJcMPwVMwKtiNgOOyfw48= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727208AbfBLGgu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 01:36:50 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57950 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725930AbfBLGgu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 01:36:50 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9C3AC4C; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:36:43 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Greg KH , Jann Horn , Dominique Martinet , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Chinner , Kevin Easton , Matthew Wilcox , Cyril Hrubis , Tejun Heo , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Daniel Gruss , Josh Snyder Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mincore: provide mapped status when cached status is not allowed Message-ID: <20190212063643.GL15609@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190130124420.1834-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20190130124420.1834-4-vbabka@suse.cz> <20190131100907.GS18811@dhcp22.suse.cz> <99ee4d3e-aeb2-0104-22be-b028938e7f88@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 12-02-19 04:44:30, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > >> After "mm/mincore: make mincore() more conservative" we sometimes restrict the > > >> information about page cache residency, which we have to do without breaking > > >> existing userspace, if possible. We thus fake the resulting values as 1, which > > >> should be safer than faking them as 0, as there might theoretically exist code > > >> that would try to fault in the page(s) until mincore() returns 1. > > >> > > >> Faking 1 however means that such code would not fault in a page even if it was > > >> not in page cache, with unwanted performance implications. We can improve the > > >> situation by revisting the approach of 574823bfab82 ("Change mincore() to count > > >> "mapped" pages rather than "cached" pages") but only applying it to cases where > > >> page cache residency check is restricted. Thus mincore() will return 0 for an > > >> unmapped page (which may or may not be resident in a pagecache), and 1 after > > >> the process faults it in. > > >> > > >> One potential downside is that mincore() will be again able to recognize when a > > >> previously mapped page was reclaimed. While that might be useful for some > > >> attack scenarios, it's not as crucial as recognizing that somebody else faulted > > >> the page in, and there are also other ways to recognize reclaimed pages anyway. > > > > > > Is this really worth it? Do we know about any specific usecase that > > > would benefit from this change? TBH I would rather wait for the report > > > than add a hard to evaluate side channel. > > > > Well it's not that complicated IMHO. Linus said it's worth trying, so > > let's see how he likes the result. The side channel exists anyway as > > long as process can e.g. check if its rss shrinked, and I doubt we are > > going to remove that possibility. > > So, where do we go from here? > > Either Linus and Andrew like the mincore() return value tweak, or this > could be further discussed (*). But in either of the cases, I think > patches 1 and 2 should be at least queued for 5.1. I would go with patch 1 for 5.1. Patches 2 still sounds controversial or incomplete to me. And patch 3, well I will leave the decision to Andrew/Linus. > (*) I'd personally include it as well, as I don't see how it would break > anything, it's pretty straightforward, and brings back some sanity to > mincore() return value. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs