linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked

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:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:53:14 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave@...olabs.net, jack@...e.cz,
        cl@...ux.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, paulus@...abs.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, hao.wu@...el.com,
        atull@...nel.org, mdf@...nel.org, aik@...abs.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned
 pages

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:54:47PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:44:32PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> 
> > All five of these places, and probably some of Davidlohr's conversions,
> > probably want to be collapsed into a common helper in the core mm for
> > accounting pinned pages.  I tried, and there are several details that
> > likely need discussion, so this can be done as a follow-on.
> 
> I've wondered the same..

I'm really thinking this would be a nice way to ensure it gets cleaned up and
does not happen again.

Also, by moving it to the core we could better manage any user visible changes.

>From a high level, pinned is a subset of locked so it seems like we need a 2
sets of helpers.

try_increment_locked_vm(...)
decrement_locked_vm(...)

try_increment_pinned_vm(...)
decrement_pinned_vm(...)

Where try_increment_pinned_vm() also increments locked_vm...  Of course this
may end up reverting the improvement of Davidlohr  Bueso's atomic work...  :-(

Furthermore it would seem better (although I don't know if at all possible) if
this were accounted for in core calls which tracked them based on how the pages
are being used so that drivers can't call try_increment_locked_vm() and then
pin the pages...  Thus getting the account wrong vs what actually happened.

And then in the end we can go back to locked_vm being the value checked against
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.

Ira