linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/17] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgP058PNY8eoWW=5uRMox-PuesDMrLsrCWPS+xXhzbQxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:19:40 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/17] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:44 PM Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>
> However, with MTE doing both get_user() every 16 bytes and
> gup can get pretty expensive.

So I really think that anything that is performance-critical had
better only do the "fault_in_write()" code path in the cold error path
where you took a page fault.

IOW, the loop structure should be


     repeat:
                take_locks();
                pagefault_disable();
                ret = do_things_with_locks();
                pagefault_enable();
                release_locks();

                // Failure path?
                if (unlikely(ret == -EFAULT)) {
                        if (fault_in_writable(..))
                                goto repeat;
                        return -EFAULT;
                }

rather than have it be some kind of "first do fault_in_writable(),
then do the work" model.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the performance concerns. It simply
shouldn't be a common or hot path.

And yes, I've seen code that does that "fault_in_xyz()" before the
critical operation that cannot take page faults, and does it
unconditionally.

But then it isn't the "fault_in_xyz()" that should be blamed if it is
slow, but the caller that does things the wrong way around.

            Linus