linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5.5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap

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: <CANN689Gpg1dCRvujUiFE91r4STGk8MCiUOB7wpfO9eDGneeEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 01:02:39 -0700
From:   Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:32 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
> On 2020-05-19 19:39, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> That gives you additional options inside internal_get_user_pages_fast(), such
> >> as, approximately:
> >>
> >> if (!(gup_flags & FOLL_FAST_ONLY))
> >>          might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
> >>
> >> ...not that that is necessarily a great idea, seeing as how it merely changes
> >> "might lock" into "maybe might lock".  :)
> >
> > I think that is completely fine, makes sure everyone not using
> > FOLL_FAST_ONLY realizes that the call could block.
> >
> > Can I ask you to add that assertion in your patchset ? Based on
> > Matthew's feedback, I would do it in my patchset, but it doesn't seem
> > worth doing if we know this will conflict with your changes.
>
> Sure, that's no problem. Although it looks like my changes may land
> in mmotm first, and then your patchset, so maybe the right move is to
> make this change *after* both of those things happen, yes?

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I would suggest you add the
might_lock_read() assertion and whoever comes in second will deal with
the conflict by changing mmap_sem to mmap_lock in that assertion.

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.