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 ffd0579396 ("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: b1f9e87686 ("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>
931298e103