linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mm/gup: skip pinnable check for refs==1

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, 31 Jan 2022 23:43:30 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mm/gup: skip pinnable check for refs==1

On 1/31/22 23:35, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 1/31/22 23:28, Minchan Kim wrote:
> ...
>>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>>>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ struct page *try_grab_compound_head(struct page *page,
>>>>             * right zone, so fail and let the caller fall back to the slow
>>>>             * path.
>>>>             */
>>>> -        if (unlikely((flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) &&
>>>> +        if (refs > 1 && unlikely((flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) &&
>>>>                     !is_pinnable_page(page)))
>>>>                return NULL;
>>>
>>> ...but are you really sure that this is the best way to "fix" the
>>> problem? This trades correctness for "bug-for-bug compatibility" with
>>> the previous code. It says, "it's OK to violate the pinnable and
>>> longterm checks, as long as you do it one page at a time, rather than in
>>> larger chunks.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to try to fix up the calling code so that it's
>>> not in violation of these zone rules?
>>
>> I think the problem is before pin_user_pages can work with CMA pages
>> in the fallback path but now it doesn't work with CMA page. Driver
> 
> Actually, it "worked" only if the caller did it one page at a time.
> (See how the above attempted fix restores the "make it work for
> refs == 1.)
> 
>> couldn't know whether it will work with CMA page or not in advance.
>>
>> pin_user_pages
>>    __get_user_pages_locked
>>      follow_page_mask
>>        follow_page_pte
>>          try_grab_page
>>            !is_pinnable_page(page)
>>              return NULL;
>>          return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>       return -ENOMEM without faultin_page
> 
> Yes, that's all clear.
> ...oh, but I guess you're pointing out that it's always going to be
page-at-a-time this deep in the pin_user_pages() call path. Which is true.

I hadn't worked through how to fix this yet, my initial reaction was
that allowing single refs to go through, while prohibiting multiple refs,
was clearly *not* the way to go.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA