linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user

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: <CAFqt6zaCSngh7-N_qZ6-S3Cj8CHF8DTSPv8anP_oJg5E6UWu9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 31 May 2020 12:41:19 +0530
From:   Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> There are four cases listed in pin_user_pages.rst. These are
> intended to help developers figure out whether to use
> get_user_pages*(), or pin_user_pages*(). However, the four cases
> do not cover all the situations. For example, drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> has a "pin, write to page, set page dirty, unpin" case.
>
> Add a fifth case, to help explain that there is a general pattern
> that requires pin_user_pages*() API calls.
>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> index 4675b04e8829..b9f2688a2c67 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> @@ -171,6 +171,26 @@ If only struct page data (as opposed to the actual memory contents that a page
>  is tracking) is affected, then normal GUP calls are sufficient, and neither flag
>  needs to be set.
>
> +CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> +Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
> +access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem.

Will it be, *"pin, access page's data, set page dirty, unpin" * ?

Case 5 may be considered a
> +superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
> +other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
> +FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
> +
> +Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
> +    pin_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    unpin_user_pages()
> +
> +INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
> +    get_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    put_page()
> +
>  page_maybe_dma_pinned(): the whole point of pinning
>  ===================================================
>
> --
> 2.26.2
>