linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] Keep track of GUPed pages in fs and block

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:47:11 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
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>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        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>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, Yan Zheng <zyan@...hat.com>,
        Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>,
        Martin Brandenburg <martin@...ibond.com>,
        devel@...ts.orangefs.org,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        Ernesto A. Fernández 
        <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] Keep track of GUPed pages in fs and block

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:35:04PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 05:08:19PM -0400, jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> > 
> > This patchset depends on various small fixes [1] and also on patchset
> > which introduce put_user_page*() [2] and thus is 5.3 material as those
> > pre-requisite will get in 5.2 at best. Nonetheless i am posting it now
> > so that it can get review and comments on how and what should be done
> > to test things.
> > 
> > For various reasons [2] [3] we want to track page reference through GUP
> > differently than "regular" page reference. Thus we need to keep track
> > of how we got a page within the block and fs layer. To do so this patch-
> > set change the bio_bvec struct to store a pfn and flags instead of a
> > direct pointer to a page. This way we can flag page that are coming from
> > GUP.
> > 
> > This patchset is divided as follow:
> >     - First part of the patchset is just small cleanup i believe they
> >       can go in as his assuming people are ok with them.
> 
> 
> >     - Second part convert bio_vec->bv_page to bio_vec->bv_pfn this is
> >       done in multi-step, first we replace all direct dereference of
> >       the field by call to inline helper, then we introduce macro for
> >       bio_bvec that are initialized on the stack. Finaly we change the
> >       bv_page field to bv_pfn.
> 
> Why do we need a bv_pfn. Why not just use the lowest bit of the page-ptr
> as a flag (pointer always aligned to 64 bytes in our case).
> 
> So yes we need an inline helper for reference of the page but is it not clearer
> that we assume a page* and not any kind of pfn ?
> It will not be the first place using low bits of a pointer for flags.

Yes i can use the lower bit of struct page * pointer it should be safe on
all architecture. I wanted to change the bv_page field name to make sure
that we catch anyone doing any direct dereference. Do you prefer keeping a
page pointer there ?

> 
> That said. Why we need it at all? I mean why not have it as a bio flag. If it exist
> at all that a user has a GUP and none-GUP pages to IO at the same request he/she
> can just submit them as two separate BIOs (chained at the block layer).
> 
> Many users just submit one page bios and let elevator merge them any way.

The issue is that bio_vec is use, on its own, outside of bios and for
those use cases i need to track the GUP status within the bio_vec. Thus
it is easier to use the same mechanisms for bio too as adding a flag to
bio would mean that i also have to audit all code path that could merge
bios. While i believe it should be restrictred to block/blk-merge.c it
seems some block and some fs have spawn some custom bio manipulation
(md comes to mind). So using same mechanism for bio_vec and bio seems
like a safer and easier course of action.

Cheers,
Jérôme