linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm/hmm: use reference counting for HMM struct v2

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: <20190328212145.GA13560@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:21:46 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm/hmm: use reference counting for HMM struct v2

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:43:13PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/28/19 12:11 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:07:20AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> >>>
> >>> Every time i read the code to check that the HMM structure does not
> >>> vanish before it should thanks to the many lock protecting its removal
> >>> i get a headache. Switch to reference counting instead it is much
> >>> easier to follow and harder to break. This also remove some code that
> >>> is no longer needed with refcounting.
> >>>
> >>> Changes since v1:
> >>>     - removed bunch of useless check (if API is use with bogus argument
> >>>       better to fail loudly so user fix their code)
> >>>     - s/hmm_get/mm_get_hmm/
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
> >>> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> >>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  include/linux/hmm.h |   2 +
> >>>  mm/hmm.c            | 170 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >>>  2 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> >>> index ad50b7b4f141..716fc61fa6d4 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/hmm.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> >>> @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ enum hmm_pfn_value_e {
> >>>  /*
> >>>   * struct hmm_range - track invalidation lock on virtual address range
> >>>   *
> >>> + * @hmm: the core HMM structure this range is active against
> >>>   * @vma: the vm area struct for the range
> >>>   * @list: all range lock are on a list
> >>>   * @start: range virtual start address (inclusive)
> >>> @@ -142,6 +143,7 @@ enum hmm_pfn_value_e {
> >>>   * @valid: pfns array did not change since it has been fill by an HMM function
> >>>   */
> >>>  struct hmm_range {
> >>> +	struct hmm		*hmm;
> >>>  	struct vm_area_struct	*vma;
> >>>  	struct list_head	list;
> >>>  	unsigned long		start;
> >>> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> >>> index fe1cd87e49ac..306e57f7cded 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/hmm.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> >>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ static const struct mmu_notifier_ops hmm_mmu_notifier_ops;
> >>>   */
> >>>  struct hmm {
> >>>  	struct mm_struct	*mm;
> >>> +	struct kref		kref;
> >>>  	spinlock_t		lock;
> >>>  	struct list_head	ranges;
> >>>  	struct list_head	mirrors;
> >>> @@ -57,6 +58,16 @@ struct hmm {
> >>>  	struct rw_semaphore	mirrors_sem;
> >>>  };
> >>>  
> >>> +static inline struct hmm *mm_get_hmm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (hmm && kref_get_unless_zero(&hmm->kref))
> >>> +		return hmm;
> >>> +
> >>> +	return NULL;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>  /*
> >>>   * hmm_register - register HMM against an mm (HMM internal)
> >>>   *
> >>> @@ -67,14 +78,9 @@ struct hmm {
> >>>   */
> >>>  static struct hmm *hmm_register(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> >>> +	struct hmm *hmm = mm_get_hmm(mm);
> >>
> >> FWIW: having hmm_register == "hmm get" is a bit confusing...
> > 
> > The thing is that you want only one hmm struct per process and thus
> > if there is already one and it is not being destroy then you want to
> > reuse it.
> > 
> > Also this is all internal to HMM code and so it should not confuse
> > anyone.
> > 
> 
> Well, it has repeatedly come up, and I'd claim that it is quite 
> counter-intuitive. So if there is an easy way to make this internal 
> HMM code clearer or better named, I would really love that to happen.
> 
> And we shouldn't ever dismiss feedback based on "this is just internal
> xxx subsystem code, no need for it to be as clear as other parts of the
> kernel", right?

Yes but i have not seen any better alternative that present code. If
there is please submit patch.

Cheers,
Jérôme