linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix is_pinnable

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:   Sat, 7 May 2022 12:23:01 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page

On Wed,  4 May 2022 23:44:29 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:

> Pages on CMA area could have MIGRATE_ISOLATE as well as MIGRATE_CMA
> so current is_pinnable_page could miss CMA pages which has MIGRATE_
> ISOLATE. It ends up putting CMA pages longterm pinning possible on
> pin_user_pages APIs so CMA allocation fails.
> 
> The CMA allocation path protects the migration type change race
> using zone->lock but what GUP path need to know is just whether the
> page is on CMA area or not rather than exact type. Thus, we don't
> need zone->lock but just checks the migratype in either of
> (MIGRATE_ISOLATE and MIGRATE_CMA).
> 
> Adding the MIGRATE_ISOLATE check in is_pinnable_page could cause
> rejecting of pinning the page on MIGRATE_ISOLATE pageblock even
> thouth it's neither CMA nor movable zone if the page is temporarily

"though"

> unmovable. However, the migration failure is general issue, not
> only come from MIGRATE_ISOLATE and the MIGRATE_ISOLATE is also
> transient state like other temporal refcount holding of pages.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -1625,8 +1625,18 @@ static inline bool page_needs_cow_for_dma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION
>  static inline bool is_pinnable_page(struct page *page)
>  {
> -	return !(is_zone_movable_page(page) || is_migrate_cma_page(page)) ||
> -		is_zero_pfn(page_to_pfn(page));
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> +	/*
> +	 * use volatile to use local variable mt instead of
> +	 * refetching mt value.
> +	 */
> +	volatile int mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> +
> +	if (mt == MIGRATE_CMA || mt == MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> +		return false;
> +#endif

Open-coded use of `volatile' draws unwelcome attention.

What are we trying to do here?  Prevent the compiler from rerunning all
of get_pageblock_migratetype() (really __get_pfnblock_flags_mask())
twice?  That would be pretty dumb of it?

Would a suitably-commented something like

	int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
	int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);

express this better?
	
> +
> +	return !(is_zone_movable_page(page) || is_zero_pfn(page_to_pfn(page)));
>  }
>  #else
>  static inline bool is_pinnable_page(struct page *page)