linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/25] mm/csky: Use mm_fault

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:58:07 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/25] mm/csky: Use mm_fault_accounting()

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:53:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:49 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's a must, but mmap_sem should not be required at least by
> > observing current code.  E.g., do_user_addr_fault() of x86 does the accounting
> > without mmap_sem even before this series.
> 
> All the accounting should be per-thread and not need any locking.
> 
> Which is why a remote GUP should never account to the remote mm - not
> only isn't there an unambiguous thread to account to (an mm can share
> many threads), but it would require locking not just for the remote
> update, but for all normal page faults.

But currently remote GUP will still do the page fault accounting on the remote
task_struct, am I right?  E.g., when the get_user_pages_remote() is called with
"tsk != current", it seems the faultin_page() will still do maj_flt/min_flt
accounting for that remote task/thread?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu