The patch titled Subject: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb not supporting softdirty tracking has been added to the -mm mm-hotfixes-unstable branch. Its filename is mm-hugetlb-fix-hugetlb-not-supporting-softdirty-tracking.patch

This patch will shortly appear at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches...

This patch will later appear in the mm-hotfixes-unstable branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm

Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm and is updated there every 2-3 working days

------------------------------------------------------ From: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Subject: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb not supporting softdirty tracking Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:34:34 +0200

Patch series "mm/hugetlb: fix write-fault handling for shared mappings", v2.

I observed that hugetlb does not support/expect write-faults in shared mappings that would have to map the R/O-mapped page writable -- and I found two case where we could currently get such faults and would erroneously map an anon page into a shared mapping.

Reproducers part of the patches.

I propose to backport both fixes to stable trees. The first fix needs a small adjustment.

This patch (of 2):

Staring at hugetlb_wp(), one might wonder where all the logic for shared mappings is when stumbling over a write-protected page in a shared mapping. In fact, there is none, and so far we thought we could get away with that because e.g., mprotect() should always do the right thing and map all pages directly writable.

Looks like we were wrong:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <errno.h> #include <sys/mman.h>

#define HUGETLB_SIZE (2 * 1024 * 1024u)

static void clear_softdirty(void) { int fd = open("/proc/self/clear_refs", O_WRONLY); const char *ctrl = "4"; int ret;

if (fd < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "open(clear_refs) failed\n"); exit(1); } ret = write(fd, ctrl, strlen(ctrl)); if (ret != strlen(ctrl)) { fprintf(stderr, "write(clear_refs) failed\n"); exit(1); } close(fd); }

int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *map; int fd;

fd = open("/dev/hugepages/tmp", O_RDWR | O_CREAT); if (!fd) { fprintf(stderr, "open() failed\n"); return -errno; } if (ftruncate(fd, HUGETLB_SIZE)) { fprintf(stderr, "ftruncate() failed\n"); return -errno; }

map = mmap(NULL, HUGETLB_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); if (map == MAP_FAILED) { fprintf(stderr, "mmap() failed\n"); return -errno; }

*map = 0;

if (mprotect(map, HUGETLB_SIZE, PROT_READ)) { fprintf(stderr, "mmprotect() failed\n"); return -errno; }

clear_softdirty();

if (mprotect(map, HUGETLB_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE)) { fprintf(stderr, "mmprotect() failed\n"); return -errno; }

*map = 0;

return 0; } --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above test fails with SIGBUS when there is only a single free hugetlb page. # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-2048kB/nr_hugepages # ./test Bus error (core dumped)

And worse, with sufficient free hugetlb pages it will map an anonymous page into a shared mapping, for example, messing up accounting during unmap and breaking MAP_SHARED semantics: # echo 2 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-2048kB/nr_hugepages # ./test # cat /proc/meminfo | grep HugePages_ HugePages_Total: 2 HugePages_Free: 1 HugePages_Rsvd: 18446744073709551615 HugePages_Surp: 0

Reason in this particular case is that vma_wants_writenotify() will return "true", removing VM_SHARED in vma_set_page_prot() to map pages write-protected. Let's teach vma_wants_writenotify() that hugetlb does not support softdirty tracking.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220811103435.188481-1-david@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220811103435.188481-2-david@redhat.com Fixes: 64e455079e1b ("mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs after VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared") Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz mike.kravetz@oracle.com Cc: Peter Feiner pfeiner@google.com Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov gorcunov@openvz.org Cc: Pavel Emelyanov xemul@parallels.com Cc: Jamie Liu jamieliu@google.com Cc: Hugh Dickins hughd@google.com Cc: Naoya Horiguchi n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com Cc: Bjorn Helgaas bhelgaas@google.com Cc: Muchun Song songmuchun@bytedance.com Cc: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [3.18+] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---

mm/mmap.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/mmap.c~mm-hugetlb-fix-hugetlb-not-supporting-softdirty-tracking +++ a/mm/mmap.c @@ -1646,8 +1646,11 @@ int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area pgprot_val(vm_pgprot_modify(vm_page_prot, vm_flags))) return 0;

- /* Do we need to track softdirty? */ - if (vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma)) + /* + * Do we need to track softdirty? hugetlb does not support softdirty + * tracking yet. + */ + if (vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma) && !is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) return 1;

/* Specialty mapping? */ _

Patches currently in -mm which might be from david@redhat.com are

mm-gup-fix-foll_force-cow-security-issue-and-remove-foll_cow.patch mm-hugetlb-fix-hugetlb-not-supporting-softdirty-tracking.patch mm-hugetlb-support-write-faults-in-shared-mappings.patch