Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fixup write permission of TLB on powerpc e500 core

From: Shan Hai
Date: Sun Jul 17 2011 - 11:41:01 EST

On 07/17/2011 10:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 21:33 +0800, Shan Hai wrote:
On ARM you could not protect pages from supervisor-mode writes,
isn't it? That means, all writable user pages are writable for
supervisor too, but its not hold for at least x86 and powerpc,
x86 and powerpc can be configured to protect pages from
supervisor-mode writes.
That doesn't sound right... how would put_user() work properly then ? A
cursory glance at the ARM code doesn't show it doing anything "special",
just stores ... but I might have missing something.

That's real for ARM, for the reason put_user() work properly is that
the first time access to the write protected page triggers a page
fault, and the handle_mm_fault() will fix up the write permission
for the kernel, because at this time no one disabled the page fault
as done in the futex case.

Think about the following situation,
a page fault occurs on the kernel trying to write to a writable shared
user page which is read only to the kernel, the following conditions
- the page is *present*, because its a shared page
- the page is *writable*, because demand paging sets up the pte for
the current process to so

The follow_page() called in the __get_user_page() returns non NULL
to its caller on the above mentioned *present* and *writable* page,
so the gup(.write=1) has no chance to set pte dirty by calling
the follow_page() has no knowledge of supervisor-mode write protected
that's the culprit in the bug discussed here.
Right, the problem is with writable pages that have "lost" (or never had
but usually it's lost, due to swapping for example) their dirty bit, or
any page that has lost young.

From what I can tell, we need to either fix those bits from the caller
of gup (futex code), which sound nasty, or more easily fix those from
gup itself, possibly under control of flags in the "write" argument to
avoid breaking code relying on the existing behaviour, expecially vs.

So, for the reason the SW tracked dirty/young and supervisor protected
pages has potential effects on not only *futex* but also on other components
of the kernel which might access the non-dirty supervisor protected page,
in my opinion it might be more sensible to fix it from gup instead of fixing
it in the futex.

Shan Hai


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at