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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:35:22 -0600 From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>, Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Martin Oliveira <martin.oliveira@...eticom.com>, Chaitanya Kulkarni <ckulkarnilinux@...il.com>, Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/8] mm: introduce FOLL_PCI_P2PDMA to gate getting PCI P2PDMA pages On 2022-09-23 17:21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 05:14:11PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> >> On 2022-09-23 17:07, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 05:01:26PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2022-09-23 16:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 02:11:03PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2022-09-23 13:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:08:31PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>>> I'm encouraging Dan to work on better infrastructure in pgmap core >>>>>>> because every pgmap implementation has this issue currently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For that reason it is probably not so relavent to this series. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps just clarify in the commit message that the FOLL_LONGTERM >>>>>>> restriction is to copy DAX until the pgmap page refcounts are fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, I'll add that note. >>>>>> >>>>>> Per the fix for the try_grab_page(), to me it doesn't fit well in >>>>>> try_grab_page() without doing a bunch of cleanup to change the >>>>>> error handling, and the same would have to be added to try_grab_folio(). >>>>>> So I think it's better to leave it where it was, but move it below the >>>>>> respective grab calls. Does the incremental patch below look correct? >>>>> >>>>> Oh? I was thinking of just a very simple thing: >>>> >>>> Really would like it to return -EREMOTEIO instead of -ENOMEM as that's the >>>> error used for bad P2PDMA page everywhere. >>> >>> I'd rather not see GUP made more fragile just for that.. >> >> Not sure how that's more fragile... You're way seems more dangerous given >> the large number of call sites we are adding it to when it might not >> apply. > > No, that is the point, it *always* applies. A devmap struct page of > the wrong type should never exit gup, from any path, no matter what. > > We have two central functions that validate a page is OK to return, > that *everyone* must call. > > If you don't put it there then we will probably miss copying it into a > call site eventually. Most of the call sites don't apply though, with huge pages and gate pages... >>> try_grab_page() calls folio_ref_inc(), that is only legal if it knows >>> the page is already a valid pointer under the PTLs, so it is safe to >>> check the pgmap as well. >> >> My point is it doesn't get a reference or a pin unless FOLL_PIN or FOLL_GET is >> set and the documentation states that neither might be set, in which case >> folio_ref_inc() will not be called... > > That isn't how GUP is structured, all the calls to try_grab_page() are > in places where PIN/GET might be set and are safe for that usage. > > If we know PIN/GET is not set then we don't even need to call the > function because it is a NOP. That's not what the documentation for the function says: "Either FOLL_PIN or FOLL_GET (or neither) may be set... Return: true for success, or if no action was required (if neither FOLL_PIN nor FOLL_GET was set, nothing is done)." https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc6/source/mm/gup.c#L194 Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists