linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user

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]

Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:58:01 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        <tom@...pey.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        <benve@...co.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

On 12/4/18 3:03 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:56 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/18 12:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:17 PM <john.hubbard@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Introduces put_user_page(), which simply calls put_page().
>>>> This provides a way to update all get_user_pages*() callers,
>>>> so that they call put_user_page(), instead of put_page().
>>>>
>>>> Also introduces put_user_pages(), and a few dirty/locked variations,
>>>> as a replacement for release_pages(), and also as a replacement
>>>> for open-coded loops that release multiple pages.
>>>> These may be used for subsequent performance improvements,
>>>> via batching of pages to be released.
>>>>
>>>> This is the first step of fixing the problem described in [1]. The steps
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) (This patch): provide put_user_page*() routines, intended to be used
>>>>    for releasing pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*().
>>>>
>>>> 2) Convert all of the call sites for get_user_pages*(), to
>>>>    invoke put_user_page*(), instead of put_page(). This involves dozens of
>>>>    call sites, and will take some time.
>>>>
>>>> 3) After (2) is complete, use get_user_pages*() and put_user_page*() to
>>>>    implement tracking of these pages. This tracking will be separate from
>>>>    the existing struct page refcounting.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Use the tracking and identification of these pages, to implement
>>>>    special handling (especially in writeback paths) when the pages are
>>>>    backed by a filesystem. Again, [1] provides details as to why that is
>>>>    desirable.
>>>
>>> I thought at Plumbers we talked about using a page bit to tag pages
>>> that have had their reference count elevated by get_user_pages()? That
>>> way there is no need to distinguish put_page() from put_user_page() it
>>> just happens internally to put_page(). At the conference Matthew was
>>> offering to free up a page bit for this purpose.
>>>
>>
>> ...but then, upon further discussion in that same session, we realized that
>> that doesn't help. You need a reference count. Otherwise a random put_page
>> could affect your dma-pinned pages, etc, etc.
> 
> Ok, sorry, I mis-remembered. So, you're effectively trying to capture
> the end of the page pin event separate from the final 'put' of the
> page? Makes sense.
> 

Yes, that's it exactly.

>> I was not able to actually find any place where a single additional page
>> bit would help our situation, which is why this still uses LRU fields for
>> both the two bits required (the RFC [1] still applies), and the dma_pinned_count.
> 
> Except the LRU fields are already in use for ZONE_DEVICE pages... how
> does this proposal interact with those?

Very badly: page->pgmap and page->hmm_data both get corrupted. Is there an entire
use case I'm missing: calling get_user_pages() on ZONE_DEVICE pages? Said another
way: is it reasonable to disallow calling get_user_pages() on ZONE_DEVICE pages?

If we have to support get_user_pages() on ZONE_DEVICE pages, then the whole 
LRU field approach is unusable.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA