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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 05:19:55 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system
 file object

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:25:50PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:23:08AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:38:59PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:00:22PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:41:42AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And I was pretty sure uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() would take care of (or ensure
> > > > > that some other thread is) destroying all the MR's we have associated with this
> > > > > FD.
> > > > 
> > > > fd's can't be revoked, so destroy_ufile_hw() can't touch them. It
> > > > deletes any underlying HW resources, but the FD persists.
> > > 
> > > I misspoke.  I should have said associated with this "context".  And of course
> > > uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() does not touch the FD.  What I mean is that the
> > > struct file which had file_pins hanging off of it would be getting its file
> > > pins destroyed by uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw().  Therefore we don't need the FD
> > > after uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() is done.
> > > 
> > > But since it does not block it may be that the struct file is gone before the
> > > MR is actually destroyed.  Which means I think the GUP code would blow up in
> > > that case...  :-(
> > 
> > Oh, yes, that is true, you also can't rely on the struct file living
> > longer than the HW objects either, that isn't how the lifetime model
> > works.
> 
> Reviewing all these old threads...  And this made me think.  While the HW
> objects may out live the struct file.
> 
> They _are_ going away in a finite amount of time right?  It is not like they
> could be held forever right?

Yes, at least until they become shared between FDs

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists