linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access

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:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:45:57 +1100
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <bskeggs@...hat.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <jhubbard@...dia.com>, <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        <jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        <willy@...radead.org>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access

On Thursday, 1 April 2021 12:46:04 AM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:27:52AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > On Thursday, 1 April 2021 12:18:54 AM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:59:28PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I guess that makes sense as the split could go either way at the
> > > > moment but I should add a check to make sure this isn't used with
> > > > pinned pages anyway.
> > > 
> > > Is it possible to have a pinned page under one of these things? If I
> > > pin it before you migrate it then it remains pinned but hidden under
> > > the swap entry?
> > 
> > At the moment yes. But I had planned (and this reminded me) to add a check 
to 
> > prevent marking pinned pages for exclusive access. 
> 
> How do you even do that without races with GUP fast?

Unless I've missed something I think I've convinced myself it should be safe 
to do the pin check after make_device_exclusive() has replaced all the PTEs 
with exclusive entries.

GUP fast sequence:
1. Read PTE
2. Pin page
3. Check PTE
4. if PTE changed -> unpin and fallback

If make_device_exclusive() runs after (1) it will either succeed or see the 
pin from (2) and fail (as desired). GUP should always see the PTE change and 
fallback which will revoke the exclusive access.

 - Alistair

> Jason
>