linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user

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]

Message-ID: <950f095f-5182-6f14-cdc3-ce5eb35884ca@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 11:24:18 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        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()

On 26.05.23 11:15, David Howells wrote:
> 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.

Right, and even code like like 873aefb376bb ("vfio/type1: Unpin zero 
pages") would handle it transparently, because they also call 
unpin_user_page().

[we can remove 873aefb376bb even without this change way because it uses 
FOLL_LONGTERM that shouldn't return the shared zeropage anymore ]

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb