linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IB/umem: ib_ucontext already have tgid, remove pid from 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOGPPbe8V45B0TVMUiezKDcm0_d5dJhrubpbu5ARhi-y6MXkUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:25:00 +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,
        Adi Dotan <adido@...lanox.com>,
        Gal Shachaf <galsha@...lanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lanox.com>,
        Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IB/umem: ib_ucontext already have tgid, remove pid
 from ib_umem structure

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 04:50:16PM +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 in ib_ucontext struct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
>> ---
>>  [v2]
>>  - use ib_ucontext tgid instread of tgid in ib_umem structure
>
> I'm looking at this again, and it doesn't seem quite right..
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
>> index 9a4e899..2b6c9b5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
>> @@ -119,7 +119,6 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_ucontext *context, unsigned long addr,
>>       umem->length     = size;
>>       umem->address    = addr;
>>       umem->page_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -     umem->pid        = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PID);
>>       /*
>>        * We ask for writable memory if any of the following
>>        * access flags are set.  "Local write" and "remote write"
>> @@ -132,7 +131,6 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_ucontext *context, unsigned long addr,
>>                IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC | IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND));
>>
>>       if (access & IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND) {
>> -             put_pid(umem->pid);
>>               ret = ib_umem_odp_get(context, umem, access);
>>               if (ret) {
>>                       kfree(umem);
>> @@ -148,7 +146,6 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_ucontext *context, unsigned long addr,
>>
>>       page_list = (struct page **) __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>>       if (!page_list) {
>> -             put_pid(umem->pid);
>>               kfree(umem);
>>               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>       }
>
> in ib_umem_get we are doing this:
>
>         down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
>         locked     = npages + current->mm->pinned_vm;
>
> And then in release we now do:
>
>         task = get_pid_task(umem->context->tgid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>         if (!task)
>                 goto out;
>         mm = get_task_mm(task);
>         mm->pinned_vm -= diff;
>
> But there is no guarantee that context->tgid and 'current' are the
> same thing during ib_umem_get..

context->tgid and current maybe different. but different threads in one
process should point to one mm structure. so it should works for multithread.

>
> So in the dysfunctional case where someone forks and keeps the context
> FD open on both sides of the fork they can cause the pinned_vm
> counter to become wrong in the processes. Sounds bad..

I am not sure about fork support, I will check this problem.

>
> Thus, I think we need to go back to storing the tgid in the ib_umem
> and just fix it to store the group leader not the thread PID?
>
> And then even more we need the ib_get_mr_mm() helper to make sense of
> this, because all the drivers are doing the wrong thing by using the
> context->tgid too.
>
> Is that all right?
>
> Jason