linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma

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: <20190815204128.GI22970@mellanox.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:41:33 +0000
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
CC:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma_walk

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:33:06PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:

> So nor HMM nor driver should dereference the struct page (i do not
> think any iommu driver would either),

Er, they do technically deref the struct page:

nouveau_dmem_convert_pfn(struct nouveau_drm *drm,
			 struct hmm_range *range)
		struct page *page;
		page = hmm_pfn_to_page(range, range->pfns[i]);
		if (!nouveau_dmem_page(drm, page)) {


nouveau_dmem_page(struct nouveau_drm *drm, struct page *page)
{
	return is_device_private_page(page) && drm->dmem == page_to_dmem(page)


Which does touch 'page->pgmap'

Is this OK without having a get_dev_pagemap() ?

Noting that the collision-retry scheme doesn't protect anything here
as we can have a concurrent invalidation while doing the above deref.

Jason