linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] bio: introduce BIO_FOLL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f1a9b9b8-3e88-04d1-d08e-bed77330dbd8@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:36:49 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] bio: introduce BIO_FOLL_PIN flag

On 8/22/20 11:57 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/22/20 11:25 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:20:58PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> Add a new BIO_FOLL_PIN flag to struct bio, whose "short int" flags field
>>> was full, thuse triggering an expansion of the field from 16, to 32
>>> bits. This allows for a nice assertion in bio_release_pages(), that the
>>> bio page release mechanism matches the page acquisition mechanism.
>>>
>>> Set BIO_FOLL_PIN whenever pin_user_pages_fast() is used, and check for
>>> BIO_FOLL_PIN before using unpin_user_page().
>>
>> When would the flag not be set when BIO_NO_PAGE_REF is not set?
> 
> Well, I don't *think* you can get there. However, I've only been studying
> bio/block for a fairly short time, and the scattering of get_page() and
> put_page() calls in some of the paths made me wonder if, for example,
> someone was using get_page() to acquire ITER_BVEC or ITER_KVEC via
> get_page(), and release them via bio_release_pages(). It's hard to tell.
> 
> It seems like that shouldn't be part of the design. I'm asserting that
> it isn't, with this new flag. But if you're sure that this assertion is
> unnecessary, then let's just drop this patch, of course.
> 

Also, I should have done a few more subsystem conversions, before
concluding that BIO_FOLL_PIN was a good idea. Now, as I'm working through mopping
up those other subsystems, I see that nfs/direct.c for example does not have access
to a bio instance, and so the whole thing is not really a great move, at least not
for adding to the iov_iter_pin_user_pages*() APIs.

Let's just drop this patch, after all.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA