linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: Do early cow for pinned pages during fork() for ptes

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:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:18:27 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: Do early cow for pinned pages during fork() for
 ptes

On 9/21/20 2:55 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:20 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
...
> I dislike the whole pin_user_pages() concept because (as far as I
> understand) it fundamentally tries to fix a problem in the subset of
> cases that are more likely to occur in practice (long-term pins
> overlapping with things like writeback), and ignores the rarer cases
> ("short-term" GUP).
> 

Well, no, that's not really fair. pin_user_pages() provides a key
prerequisite to fixing *all* of the bugs in that area, not just a
subset. The 5 cases in Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst cover
this pretty well. Or if they don't, let me know and I'll have another
pass at it.

The case for a "pin count" that is (logically) separate from a
page->_refcount is real, and it fixes real problems. An elevated
refcount can be caused by a lot of things, but it can normally be waited
for and/or retried. The FOLL_PIN pages cannot.

Of course, a valid remaining criticism of the situation is, "why not
just *always* mark any of these pages as "dma-pinned"? In other words,
why even have a separate gup/pup API? And in fact, perhaps eventually
we'll just get rid of the get_user_pages*() side of it. But the pin
count will need to remain, in order to discern between DMA pins and
temporary refcount boosts.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA