[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9dc75bf-b13c-37ba-6c16-9fc163703dd@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 20:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/23] arm: allow pte_offset_map[_lock]() to fail
On Wed, 10 May 2023, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:42:44PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/uaccess_with_memcpy.c b/arch/arm/lib/uaccess_with_memcpy.c
> > index e4c2677cc1e9..2f6163f05e93 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/uaccess_with_memcpy.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/uaccess_with_memcpy.c
> > @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ pin_page_for_write(const void __user *_addr, pte_t **ptep, spinlock_t **ptlp)
> > return 0;
> >
> > pte = pte_offset_map_lock(current->mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> > + if (unlikely(!pte))
> > + return 0;
>
> Failing seems like the wrong thig to do if we transitioned from a PTE
> to PMD here? Looks to me like we should goto a new label right after
> the 'pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);', no?
I'm pretty sure it's right as is; but probably more by luck than care -
I do not think I studied this code as closely as you have now made me do;
and it's clear that this is a piece of code where rare transient issues
could come up, and must be handled correctly. Thank you for making me
look again.
The key is in the callers of pin_page_for_write(): __copy_to_user_memcpy()
and __clear_user_memset(). They're doing "while (!pin_page_for_write())"
loops - they hope for the fast path of getting pte_lock or pmd_lock on
the page, and doing a __memcpy() or __memset() to the user address; but
if anything goes "wrong", a __put_user() to fault in the page (or fail)
then pin_page_for_write() again.
"if (unlikely(!pte)) return 0" says that the expected fast path did not
succeed, so please __put_user() and have another go.
It is somewhere I could have done a "goto again", but that would be
superfluous when it's already designed that way at the outer level.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists