From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>,
Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/uverbs: Don't return the shared zero page from rdma_umap_fault()
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:20:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78802ed9-9cc6-41c4-b131-7c7d38f7ff39@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261025-fix-rdma_umap_fault-zero-page-v1-1-186255624f1f@nvidia.com>
On 10/26/26 03:04, Zi Yan wrote:
> After disassociation, rdma_umap_fault() returns the shared zero page from
> ->fault for VMAs without VM_WRITE and VM_MAYWRITE. Such VMAs come from
> rdma_user_mmap_io() in drivers that clear VM_MAYWRITE and they are shared
> VM_PFNMAP. A page returned from ->fault is mapped as a normal page and goes
> through rmap code. Two issues:
>
> 1. shared zero page causes VM_WARN_ONs in rmap code,
>
> 2. normal pages in shared VM_PFNMAP VMAs cause accounting leak on arch
> without pte_special(), namely the page refcount, mapcount, and vm stats
> are never dropped.
>
> Map ufile->disassociate_page for VMAs without VM_WRITE and VM_MAYWRITE,
> with vmf_insert_pfn(). The page lives until ib_uverbs_release_file(), which
> cannot run while a VMA holds a reference to the file.
>
> Writable VMAs keep returning disassociate_page in vmf->page, thus its
> accounting leak on arch without pte_special() needs a separate fix.
>
> Userspace can see two differences after the patch. A mapping without
> VM_WRITE and VM_MAYWRITE now reads what was written through writable
> mappings of the same uverbs file instead of zeroes; after disassociation
> both are dummy data. The first fault now allocates the page and fails with
> VM_FAULT_SIGBUS if the allocation fails, as a write fault already does.
>
> Fixes: 67f269b37f9b ("RDMA/ucontext: Fix regression with disassociate")
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> ---
> The issue was discovered during PG_folio development when making sure only
> rmappable folios can enter rmap code path.
>
> Alternative: map the zero page with vmf_insert_pfn_prot()
> ===
>
> Read-only mappings could keep reading zeroes if rdma_umap_fault()
> installed the zero page itself as a special PTE:
>
> return vmf_insert_pfn_prot(vmf->vma, vmf->address, zero_pfn(vmf->address));
>
> It does not work today. Commit 7b466529307be ("mm: disallow raw PFN
> mappings of huge/shared zeropage") makes vmf_insert_pfn_prot() return
> VM_FAULT_SIGBUS for the zero pfn. vmf_insert_mixed() does not support
> VM_PFNMAP, since vm_mixed_zeropage_allowed() warns on VM_PFNMAP.
>
> The first version of that patch [1] did not change vmf_insert_pfn_prot().
> Due to no in-kernel user at that time and complication it can cause,
> vmf_insert_pfn_prot() rejects zero pages now.
>
> Fix to writable VMA path
> ===
> A new vmf_insert_pfn_mkwrite() is needed, since vmf_insert_pfn() has a
> narrow failing scenario. When a process mapping the disassociated page has
> soft-dirty tracking enabled, vm_page_prot becomes read-only;
> vmf_insert_pfn() then uses a read-only PTE instead of a writable one;
> fixup_user_fault() is used to write to the page (e.g., KVM with the uverbs
> mapping as guest memory) and fails, because it does not take the second
> fault to upgrade the read-only PTE to a writable one.
>
> LLM was used for investigation and code development.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260917121010.60966-1-lance.yang@linux.dev/
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> index 2a046c888dfab..c3638bf031b15 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> @@ -725,39 +725,51 @@ static void rdma_umap_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>
> /*
> * Once the zap_special_vma_range has been called touches to the VMA will come here and
> - * we return a dummy writable zero page for all the pfns.
> + * we map a dummy page for all the pfns.
> */
> static vm_fault_t rdma_umap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> struct ib_uverbs_file *ufile = vmf->vma->vm_file->private_data;
> struct rdma_umap_priv *priv = vmf->vma->vm_private_data;
> vm_fault_t ret = 0;
> + struct page *page;
>
> if (!priv)
> return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>
> - /* Read only pages can just use the system zero page. */
> - if (!(vmf->vma->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE | VM_MAYWRITE))) {
> - vmf->page = ZERO_PAGE(vmf->address);
> - get_page(vmf->page);
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> mutex_lock(&ufile->umap_lock);
> if (!ufile->disassociate_page)
> ufile->disassociate_page =
> alloc_pages(vmf->gfp_mask | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
>
> - if (ufile->disassociate_page) {
> - /*
> - * This VMA is forced to always be shared so this doesn't have
> - * to worry about COW.
> - */
> - vmf->page = ufile->disassociate_page;
> - get_page(vmf->page);
> - } else {
> + page = ufile->disassociate_page;
> + if (!page) {
> ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Make sure the page is usable, like what __do_fault() does */
> + if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
> + ret = VM_FAULT_HWPOISON;
> + goto out;
> }
Is that really required? memory_failure() complains pretty hard on pages it
doesn't know how to handle (random kernel memory).
I'd assume that this here is not an ordinary pagecache page that mamoery_failure
would know how to handle?
> +
> + /*
> + * VMAs that cannot become writable map the page as a raw pfn, like
> + * the device memory it replaces. The page lives as long as the file.
> + */
> + if (!(vmf->vma->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE | VM_MAYWRITE))) {
> + ret = vmf_insert_pfn(vmf->vma, vmf->address, page_to_pfn(page));
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * This VMA is forced to always be shared so this doesn't have
> + * to worry about COW.
> + */
> + vmf->page = page;
> + get_page(page);
This split handling is pretty horrible TBH.
In once case we take a reference in the other not?
Why not perform a PFN mapping in any case?
(Does GUP have to work on these things?)
--
Cheers,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-26 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-26 2:04 Zi Yan
2026-10-26 8:55 ` Jose A. Perez de Azpillaga
2026-10-26 11:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-10-26 15:41 ` Zi Yan
2026-10-26 12:20 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-10-26 15:48 ` Zi Yan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=78802ed9-9cc6-41c4-b131-7c7d38f7ff39@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®