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: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:51:25 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        ngeoffray@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd
 operations

* Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240213 14:37]:
..

> Asking to avoid any more iterations: these functions should call the
> currently defined ones or should replace them. For instance, should I
> do the following:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> ... uffd_mfill_lock()
> {
>         return find_and_lock_dst_vma(...);
> }
> #else
> ...uffd_mfill_lock()
> {
>        return lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma(...);
> }
> #endif
> 
> or have the function replace
> find_and_lock_dst_vma()/lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma() ?

Since the two have the same prototype, then you can replace the function
names directly.

The other side should take the vma and use vma->vm_mm to get the mm to
unlock the mmap_lock in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK.  That way those
prototypes also match and can use the same names directly.

move_pages() requires unlocking two VMAs or one, so pass both VMAs
through and do the check in there.  This, unfortunately means that one
of the VMAs will not be used in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK case.  You
could add an assert to ensure src_vma is locked prior to using dst_vma
to unlock the mmap_lock(), to avoid potential bot emails.

Thanks,
Liam

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ