linux-kernel - Re: cma_alloc(), add sleep-and-retry for temporary page pinning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 18:31:41 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pratikp@...eaurora.org,
        pdaly@...eaurora.org, sudraja@...eaurora.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
Subject: Re: cma_alloc(), add sleep-and-retry for temporary page pinning

On Wed,  5 Aug 2020 19:56:21 -0700 Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org> wrote:

> On mobile devices, failure to allocate from a CMA area constitutes a
> functional failure.  Sometimes during CMA allocations, we have observed
> that pages in a CMA area allocated through alloc_pages(), that we're trying
> to migrate away to make room for a CMA allocation, are temporarily pinned.
> This temporary pinning can occur when a process that owns the pinned page
> is being forked (the example is explained further in the commit text).
> This patch addresses this issue by adding a sleep-and-retry loop in
> cma_alloc() . There's another example we know of similar to the above that
> occurs during exit_mmap() (in zap_pte_range() specifically), but I need to
> determine if this is still relevant today.

Sounds fairly serious but boy, we're late for 5.9.

I can queue it for 5.10 with a cc:stable so that it gets backported
into earlier kernels a couple of months from now, if we think the
seriousness justifies backporting(?). 

Or I can do something else - thoughts?

And...  it really is a sad little patch, isn't it?  Instead of fixing
the problem, it reduces the problem's probability by 5x.  Can't we do
better than this?