linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/umem: use tgid instead of pid in ib

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:   Mon, 7 May 2018 09:38:53 +0800
From:   858585 jemmy <jemmy858585@...il.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     dledford@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        qing.huang@...cle.com, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        artemyko@...lanox.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        adido@...lanox.com, Gal Shachaf <galsha@...lanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lanox.com>,
        Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/umem: use tgid instead of pid in ib_umem structure

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:51:15PM +0800, 858585 jemmy wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:14 AM, 858585 jemmy <jemmy858585@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:04:34PM +0800, Lidong Chen wrote:
>> >>> The userspace may invoke ibv_reg_mr and ibv_dereg_mr by different threads.
>> >>> If when ibv_dereg_mr invoke and the thread which invoked ibv_reg_mr has
>> >>> exited, get_pid_task will return NULL, ib_umem_release does not decrease
>> >>> mm->pinned_vm. This patch fixes it by use tgid.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
>> >>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 12 ++++++------
>> >>>  include/rdma/ib_umem.h         |  2 +-
>> >>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> Why are we even using a struct pid for this? Does anyone know?
>> >
>> > commit 87773dd56d5405ac28119fcfadacefd35877c18f add pid in ib_umem structure.
>> >
>> > and the comment has such information:
>> > Later a different process with a different mm_struct than the one that
>> > allocated the ib_umem struct
>> > ends up releasing it which results in decrementing the new processes
>> > mm->pinned_vm count past
>> > zero and wrapping.
>>
>> I think a different process should not have the permission to release ib_umem.
>> so maybe the reason is not a different process?
>> can ib_umem_release be invoked in interrupt context?
>
> We plan to restore fork support and add some way to share MRs between
> processes, so we must consider having a different process release the
> umem than acquired it.

If restore fork support, what is the expected behavior?
If parent process pinned_vm is x, what is the child process pinned_vm
value after fork? It reset to zero now.
If the parent process call ibv_dereg_mr after fork, should the child
process decrease pinned_vm?
If the child process call  ibv_dereg_mr after fork, should the parent
process decrease pinned_vm?


>
> Jason