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  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:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:31:03 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <>
To:     Alistair Popple <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>
Cc:     Felix Kuehling <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Alex Sierra <>,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] mm: add zone device coherent type memory support

On 16.02.22 03:36, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 February 2022 1:03:57 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:23:44PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> Device private and device coherent pages are not marked with pte_devmap and they
>>> are backed by a struct page. The only way of inserting them is via migrate_vma.
>>> The refcount is decremented in zap_pte_range() on munmap() with special handling
>>> for device private pages. Looking at it again though I wonder if there is any
>>> special treatment required in zap_pte_range() for device coherent pages given
>>> they count as present pages.
>> This is what I guessed, but we shouldn't be able to just drop
>> pte_devmap on these pages without any other work?? Granted it does
>> very little already..
> Yes, I agree we need to check this more closely. For device private pages
> not having pte_devmap is fine, because they are non-present swap entries so
> they always get special handling in the swap entry paths but the same isn't
> true for coherent device pages.

I'm curious, how does the refcount of a PageAnon() DEVICE_COHERENT page
look like when mapped? I'd assume it's also (currently) still offset by
one, meaning, if it's mapped into a single page table it's always at
least 2.

Just a note that if my assumption is correct and if we'd have such a
page mapped R/O, do_wp_page() would always have to copy it
unconditionally and would not be able to reuse it on write faults.
(while I'm working on improving the reuse logic, I think there is also
work in progress to avoid this additional reference on some ZONE_DEVICE
stuff -- I'd assume that would include DEVICE_COHERENT ?)

>> I thought at least gup_fast needed to be touched or did this get
>> handled by scanning the page list after the fact?
> Right, for gup I think the only special handling required is to prevent
> pinning. I had assumed that check_and_migrate_movable_pages() would still get
> called for gup_fast but unless I've missed something I don't think it does.
> That means gup_fast could still pin movable and coherent pages. Technically
> that is ok for coherent pages, but it's undesirable.

We really should have the same pinning rules for GUP vs. GUP-fast.
is_pinnable_page() should be the right place for such checks (similarly
as indicated in my reply to the migration series).


David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists