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]

Message-ID: <20190116022312.GJ3696@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:23:12 -0500
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 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>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <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 Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:01:09PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:56 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:44:41PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> [..]
> > To make it clear.
> >
> > Lock code:
> >     GUP()
> >         ...
> >         lock_page(page);
> >         if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> >             unlock_page(page);
> >             wait_stable_page(page);
> >             goto retry;
> >         }
> >         atomic_add(page->refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> >         unlock_page(page);
> >
> >     test_set_page_writeback()
> >         bool pinned = false;
> >         ...
> >         pinned = page_is_pin(page); // could be after TestSetPageWriteback
> >         TestSetPageWriteback(page);
> >         ...
> >         return pinned;
> >
> > Memory barrier:
> >     GUP()
> >         ...
> >         atomic_add(page->refcount, PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> >         smp_mb();
> >         if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> >             atomic_add(page->refcount, -PAGE_PIN_BIAS);
> >             wait_stable_page(page);
> >             goto retry;
> >         }
> >
> >     test_set_page_writeback()
> >         bool pinned = false;
> >         ...
> >         TestSetPageWriteback(page);
> >         smp_wmb();
> >         pinned = page_is_pin(page);
> >         ...
> >         return pinned;
> >
> >
> > One is not more complex than the other. One can contend, the other
> > will _never_ contend.
> 
> The complexity is in the validation of lockless algorithms. It's
> easier to reason about locks than barriers for the long term
> maintainability of this code. I'm with Jan and John on wanting to
> explore lock_page() before a barrier-based scheme.

How is the above hard to validate ? Either GUP see racing
test_set_page_writeback because it test write back after
incrementing the refcount, or test_set_page_writeback sees
GUP because it checks for pin after setting the write back
bits.

So if GUP see !PageWriteback() then test_set_page_writeback
see page_pin(page) as true. If test_set_page_writeback sees
page_pin(page) as false then GUP did see PageWriteback() as
true.

You _never_ have !PageWriteback() in GUP and !page_pin() in
test_set_page_writeback() if they are both racing. This is
an impossible scenario because of memory barrier.

Cheers,
Jérôme