linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] USB: zerocopy support for usbfs

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]

Message-ID: <53B512AE.2040802@baslerweb.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:22:06 +0200
From:	Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@...lerweb.com>
To:	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] USB: zerocopy support for usbfs


On 02.07.2014 21:38, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
>> 
Stefan Klug
Software Developer

Basler AG
An der Strusbek 60-62
22926 Ahrensburg
Germany

Tel. +49 4102 463 582
Fax +49 4102 463 46 582
 
Stefan.Klug@...lerweb.com

www.baslerweb.com

Vorstand: Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Ley (Vorsitzender) · John P. Jennings · Arndt Bake · Hardy Mehl
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Norbert Basler 
Basler AG · Amtsgericht Lübeck HRB 4090 · Ust-IdNr.: DE 135 098 121 · Steuer-Nr.: 30 292 04497 · WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 83888045
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 17:53 +0200, Stefan Klug wrote:
>>
>>> Implementation details:
>>> The patch only touches drivers/usb/core/devio.c.
>>> In procy_do_submiturb(), it is checked if zerocopy is allowed. This is
>>> currently a rough
>>> check which compares the number of required pages to
>>> ps->dev->bus->sg_tablesize.
>> It seems to me that the check is per call, so using
>> multiple calls one could still pin unlimited amounts
>> of memory.
> usbfs keeps track of the total amount of pinned memory and enforces an
> overall limit.  It will be necessary to add the size of the transfer
> buffer to that total.
Leaving the zerocopy transfers out of this limit was intentional. I 
thought this is user-memory so we shouldn't add it to the overall limit 
as it is not allocated by usbfs.
But I didn't think of the pinning problem. So yes, I can add it to the 
overall limit.
>>> I don't know if there is more to check there.
>>> Then the user memory provided inside the usbdevfs_urb structure is
>>> pinned to
>>> physical memory using get_user_pages_fast().
>>> All the user pages are added to the scatter-gather list and the logic
>>> continues as before.
>> How do you enforce the cache coherency rules?
> There is no way to do this.  If the user program accesses memory when
> it shouldn't, the transfer might not work right.
So this one is fine, right?
>> Also you don't have a fall back if get_user_pages_fast()
>> returns less than requested. It seems to me that than you
>> ought to fall back buffered IO.
> Agreed.
Good point. I'll add the fallback to the next iteration.
--
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/