[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <522654.1685092526@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 10:15:26 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com> wrote:
> > iov_iter_extract_pages(), on the other hand, is only used in two places
> > with these patches and the pins are always released with
> > unpin_user_page*() so it's a lot easier to audit.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I guess these are the cases where you're
> likely to see zero page usage, but since this is changing all PUP*() callers
> don't you need to audit all of those too?
I don't think it should be necessary. This only affects pages obtained from
gup with FOLL_PIN - and, so far as I know, those always have to be released
with unpin_user_page*() which is part of the gup API and thus it should be
transparent to the users.
Pages obtained FOLL_GET, on the other hand, aren't freed through the gup API -
and there are a bunch of ways of releasing them - and getting additional refs
too.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists