linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 10/15] block: add gup flag to bio_add_page()/bio_add_pc_page()/__bio_add

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: <20190415152433.GB3436@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:24:33 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/15] block: add gup flag to
 bio_add_page()/bio_add_pc_page()/__bio_add_page()

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:59:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi Jerome!
> 
> On Thu 11-04-19 17:08:29, jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> > 
> > We want to keep track of how we got a reference on page added to bio_vec
> > ie wether the page was reference through GUP (get_user_page*) or not. So
> > add a flag to bio_add_page()/bio_add_pc_page()/__bio_add_page() to that
> > effect.
> 
> Thanks for writing this patch set! Looking through patches like this one,
> I'm a bit concerned. With so many bio_add_page() callers it's difficult to
> get things right and not regress in the future. I'm wondering whether the
> things won't be less error-prone if we required that all page reference
> from bio are gup-like (not necessarily taken by GUP, if creator of the bio
> gets to struct page he needs via some other means (e.g. page cache lookup),
> he could just use get_gup_pin() helper we'd provide).  After all, a page
> reference in bio means that the page is pinned for the duration of IO and
> can be DMAed to/from so it even makes some sense to track the reference
> like that. Then bio_put() would just unconditionally do put_user_page() and
> we won't have to propagate the information in the bio.
> 
> Do you think this would be workable and easier?

It might be workable but i am not sure it is any simpler. bio_add_page*()
does not take page reference it is up to the caller to take the proper
page reference so the complexity would be push there (just in a different
place) so i don't think it would be any simpler. This means that we would
have to update more code than this patchset does.

This present patch is just a coccinelle semantic patch and even if it
is scary to see that many call site, they are not that many that need
to worry about the GUP parameter and they all are in patch 11, 12, 13
and 14.

So i believe this patchset is simpler than converting everyone to take
a GUP like page reference. Also doing so means we loose the information
about GUP kind of defeat the purpose. So i believe it would be better
to limit special reference to GUP only pages.

Cheers,
Jérôme