linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] RDMA/umem: pin_user_pages*() can temporarily fail due to migration glitches

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, 30 Apr 2024 22:10:43 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@...dia.com>,
	Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	Pak Markthub <pmarkthub@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RDMA/umem: pin_user_pages*() can temporarily fail due to
 migration glitches

> +		pinned = -ENOMEM;
> +		int attempts = 0;
> +		/*
> +		 * pin_user_pages_fast() can return -EAGAIN, due to falling back
> +		 * to gup-slow and then failing to migrate pages out of
> +		 * ZONE_MOVABLE due to a transient elevated page refcount.
> +		 *
> +		 * One retry is enough to avoid this problem, so far, but let's
> +		 * use a slightly higher retry count just in case even larger
> +		 * systems have a longer-lasting transient refcount problem.
> +		 *
> +		 */
> +		static const int MAX_ATTEMPTS = 3;
> +
> +		while (pinned == -EAGAIN && attempts < MAX_ATTEMPTS) {
> +			pinned = pin_user_pages_fast(cur_base,
> +						     min_t(unsigned long,
> +							npages, PAGE_SIZE /
> +							sizeof(struct page *)),
> +						     gup_flags, page_list);
>  			ret = pinned;
> -			goto umem_release;
> +			attempts++;
> +
> +			if (pinned == -EAGAIN)
> +				continue;
>  		}
> +		if (pinned < 0)
> +			goto umem_release;

This doesn't make sense.  IFF a blind retry is all that is needed it
should be done in the core functionality.  I fear it's not that easy,
though.