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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 26 May 2019 04:06:31 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        LKML <>,,, John Hubbard <>,
        Doug Ledford <>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <>,
        Christian Benvenuti <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Ira Weiny <>,
        Jérôme Glisse <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0700, wrote:
> For infiniband code that retains pages via get_user_pages*(),
> release those pages via the new put_user_page(), or
> put_user_pages*(), instead of put_page()

I have no objection to this particular patch, but ...

> This is a tiny part of the second step of fixing the problem described
> in [1]. The steps are:
> 1) Provide put_user_page*() routines, intended to be used
>    for releasing pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*().
> 2) Convert all of the call sites for get_user_pages*(), to
>    invoke put_user_page*(), instead of put_page(). This involves dozens of
>    call sites, and will take some time.
> 3) After (2) is complete, use get_user_pages*() and put_user_page*() to
>    implement tracking of these pages. This tracking will be separate from
>    the existing struct page refcounting.
> 4) Use the tracking and identification of these pages, to implement
>    special handling (especially in writeback paths) when the pages are
>    backed by a filesystem. Again, [1] provides details as to why that is
>    desirable.

I thought we agreed at LSFMM that the future is a new get_user_bvec()
/ put_user_bvec().  This is largely going to touch the same places as
step 2 in your list above.  Is it worth doing step 2?

One of the advantages of put_user_bvec() is that it would be quite easy
to miss a conversion from put_page() to put_user_page(), but it'll be
a type error to miss a conversion from put_page() to put_user_bvec().

Powered by blists - more mailing lists