linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] drm/ttm: Refcount allocated tail pages

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, 15 Aug 2022 13:28:11 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Trigger Huang <Trigger.Huang@...il.com>,
        Gert Wollny <gert.wollny@...labora.com>,
        Antonio Caggiano <antonio.caggiano@...labora.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...labora.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drm/ttm: Refcount allocated tail pages

Am 15.08.22 um 13:19 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> [SNIP]
>>>> I'll try to dig out the older discussions, thank you for the quick
>>>> reply!
>>> Are you sure it was really discussed in public previously? All I can
>>> find is yours two answers to a similar patches where you're saying that
>>> this it's a wrong solution without in-depth explanation and further
>>> discussions.
>> Yeah, that's my problem as well I can't find that of hand.
>>
>> But yes it certainly was discussed in public.
> If it was only CC'd to dri-devel, then could be that emails didn't pass
> the spam moderation :/

That might be possible.

>>> Maybe it was discussed privately? In this case I will be happy to get
>>> more info from you about the root of the problem so I could start to
>>> look at how to fix it properly. It's not apparent where the problem is
>>> to a TTM newbie like me.
>>>
>> Well this is completely unfixable. See the whole purpose of TTM is to
>> allow tracing where what is mapped of a buffer object.
>>
>> If you circumvent that and increase the page reference yourself than
>> that whole functionality can't work correctly any more.
> Are you suggesting that the problem is that TTM doesn't see the KVM page
> faults/mappings?

Yes, and no. It's one of the issues, but there is more behind that (e.g. 
what happens when TTM switches from pages to local memory for backing a BO).

Another question is why is KVM accessing the page structure in the first 
place? The VMA is mapped with VM_PFNMAP and VM_IO, KVM should never ever 
touch any of those pages.

Regards,
Christian.