[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181011132013.GA5968@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:20:13 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, john.hubbard@...il.com,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder
versions
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > This is a real worry. If someone uses a mistaken put_page() then how
> > will that bug manifest at runtime? Under what set of circumstances
> > will the kernel trigger the bug?
>
> At runtime such bug will manifest as a page that can never be evicted from
> memory. We could warn in put_page() if page reference count drops below
> bare minimum for given user pin count which would be able to catch some
> issues but it won't be 100% reliable. So at this point I'm more leaning
> towards making get_user_pages() return a different type than just
> struct page * to make it much harder for refcount to go wrong...
At least for the infiniband code being used as an example here we take
the struct page from get_user_pages, then stick it in a sgl, and at
put_page time we get the page back out of the sgl via sg_page()
So type safety will not help this case... I wonder how many other
users are similar? I think this is a pretty reasonable flow for DMA
with user pages.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists