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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:52:06 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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 15-04-19 20:22:04, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Thinking again on this, i can drop that patch and just add a new
> bio_add_page_from_gup() and then it would be much more obvious that
> only very few places need to use that new version and they are mostly
> obvious places. It is usualy GUP then right away add the pages to bio
> or bvec.

Yes, that's another option. Probably second preferred by me after my own
proposal ;)

> We can probably add documentation around GUP explaining that if you
> want to build a bio or bvec from GUP you must pay attention to which
> function you use.

Yes, although we both know how careful people are in reading
documentation...

> Also pages going in a bio are not necessarily written too, they can
> be use as source (writting to block) or as destination (reading from
> block). So having all of them with refcount bias as GUP would muddy
> the water somemore between pages we can no longer clean (ie GUPed)
> and those that are just being use in regular read or write operation.

Why would the difference matter here?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR