linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Block: Discard may need to allocate pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 2 May 2009 23:11:50 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jgarzik@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Block: Discard may need to allocate pages


[I thought I replied to this, but I don't see an indication that I did]

On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 03:28:07PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > +++ b/block/blk-barrier.c
> > @@ -356,6 +356,8 @@ static void blkdev_discard_end_io(struct bio *bio, int err)
> >  		clear_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &bio->bi_flags);
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (bio_has_data(bio))
> > +		__free_page(bio_page(bio));
> 
> Page freed which was allocated by the LLD

It wasn't allocated by the LLD.  It was allocated by the ULD.

> >  	bio_put(bio);
> 
> OK bio was allocated by user code but shouldn't

?  Are you saying the bio should be allocated by each driver
implementing a discard operation?

> >  	while (nr_sects && !ret) {
> > -		bio = bio_alloc(gfp_mask, 0);
> > +		bio = bio_alloc(gfp_mask, 1);
> 
> blkdev_issue_discard() and blk_ioctl_discard() has half a page
> of common (and changing) code, could be done to use a common
> helper that sets policy about bio allocation sizes and such.
> 
> Just my $0.017

Yes, that works nicely.  Thanks for the suggestion.

> > @@ -1118,7 +1120,7 @@ void init_request_from_bio(struct request *req, struct bio *bio)
> >  		req->cmd_flags |= REQ_DISCARD;
> >  		if (bio_barrier(bio))
> >  			req->cmd_flags |= REQ_SOFTBARRIER;
> > -		req->q->prepare_discard_fn(req->q, req);
> > +		req->q->prepare_discard_fn(req->q, req, bio);
> 
> Allocation of bio page could be done commonly here.
> The prepare_discard_fn() is made to return the needed size. It is not as if we actually
> give the driver a choice about the allocation.

Not all drivers need to allocate a page.  Some drivers may need
to allocate more than one page, depending on how large the range is.
And the driver can't just return the page size it needs here -- it needs
to fill in the contents of the page too.

I suppose we could do something fairly disgusting like:

		for (;;) {
			struct page *page;
			needed = req->q->prepare_discard_fn(req->q, req, bio);
			if (!needed)
				break;
			page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
			if (bio_add_pc_page(q, bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0) < PAGE_SIZE)
				goto fail;
		}

Then the driver can return 0 => success, anything else => allocate more
ram, try again.

> I have one question:
> 
> At [PATCH 4/5] and [PATCH 4/5] you do:
> +	struct page *page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> does that zero the alloced page? since if I understand correctly this page
> will go on the wire, a SW target on the other size could snoop random Kernel
> memory, is that allowed? OK I might be totally clueless here.

alloc_page doesn't zero the page.

scsi only sends out 24 bytes of that page on the wire, and it initialises
all 24 bytes.  ide/ata send multiples of 512 bytes on the wire, and
they're careful to zero any of the space they're not using.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/