linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/gup.c: fix the wrong comments

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, 9 Apr 2019 04:19:05 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Huang Shijie <sjhuang@...vatar.ai>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, palmer@...ive.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/gup.c: fix the wrong comments

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 11:04:18AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:49:29PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:08:33AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:13:13AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:37:45AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > > The root cause is that sg_alloc_table_from_pages() requires the
> > > > > page order to keep the same as it used in the user space, but
> > > > > get_user_pages_fast() will mess it up.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand how get_user_pages_fast() can return the pages in a
> > > > different order in the array from the order they appear in userspace.
> > > > Can you explain?
> > > Please see the code in gup.c:
> > > 
> > > 	int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> > > 				unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages)
> > > 	{
> > > 		.......
> > > 		if (gup_fast_permitted(start, nr_pages)) {
> > > 			local_irq_disable();
> > > 			gup_pgd_range(addr, end, gup_flags, pages, &nr);               // The @pages array maybe filled at the first time.
> > 
> > Right ... but if it's not filled entirely, it will be filled part-way,
> > and then we stop.
> > 
> > > 			local_irq_enable();
> > > 			ret = nr;
> > > 		}
> > > 		.......
> > > 		if (nr < nr_pages) {
> > > 			/* Try to get the remaining pages with get_user_pages */
> > > 			start += nr << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > 			pages += nr;                                                  // The @pages is moved forward.
> > 
> > Yes, to the point where gup_pgd_range() stopped.
> > 
> > > 			if (gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) {
> > > 				down_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > 				ret = __gup_longterm_locked(current, current->mm,      // The @pages maybe filled at the second time
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > 				/*
> > > 				 * retain FAULT_FOLL_ALLOW_RETRY optimization if
> > > 				 * possible
> > > 				 */
> > > 				ret = get_user_pages_unlocked(start, nr_pages - nr,    // The @pages maybe filled at the second time.
> > > 							      pages, gup_flags);
> > 
> > Yes.  But they'll be in the same order.
> > 
> > > BTW, I do not know why we mess up the page order. It maybe used in some special case.
> > 
> > I'm not discounting the possibility that you've found a bug.
> > But documenting that a bug exists is not the solution; the solution is
> > fixing the bug.
> I do not think it is a bug :)
> 
> If we use the get_user_pages_unlocked(), DMA is okay, such as:
>                      ....
> 		     get_user_pages_unlocked()
> 		     sg_alloc_table_from_pages()
> 	             .....
> 
> I think the comment is not accurate enough. So just add more comments, and tell the driver
> users how to use the GUPs.

gup_fast() and gup_unlocked() should return the pages in the same order.
If they do not, then it is a bug.