linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: gup: do not call try_grab

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:02:27 -0700
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, peterx@...hat.com, yangge1116@....com, 
	david@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: gup: do not call try_grab_folio() in slow path

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:54 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:14:13 -0700 Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>
> > The try_grab_folio() is supposed to be used in fast path and it elevates
> > folio refcount by using add ref unless zero.  We are guaranteed to have
> > at least one stable reference in slow path, so the simple atomic add
> > could be used.  The performance difference should be trivial, but the
> > misuse may be confusing and misleading.
> >
> > In another thread [1] a kernel warning was reported when pinning folio
> > in CMA memory when launching SEV virtual machine.  The splat looks like:
> >
> > [  464.325306] WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 6734 at mm/gup.c:1313 __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520
> > [  464.325464] CPU: 13 PID: 6734 Comm: qemu-kvm Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.6.33+ #6
> > [  464.325477] RIP: 0010:__get_user_pages+0x423/0x520
> > [  464.325515] Call Trace:
> > [  464.325520]  <TASK>
> > [  464.325523]  ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520
> > [  464.325528]  ? __warn+0x81/0x130
> > [  464.325536]  ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520
> > [  464.325541]  ? report_bug+0x171/0x1a0
> > [  464.325549]  ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70
> > [  464.325554]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70
> > [  464.325558]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> > [  464.325567]  ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520
> > [  464.325575]  __gup_longterm_locked+0x212/0x7a0
> > [  464.325583]  internal_get_user_pages_fast+0xfb/0x190
> > [  464.325590]  pin_user_pages_fast+0x47/0x60
> > [  464.325598]  sev_pin_memory+0xca/0x170 [kvm_amd]
> > [  464.325616]  sev_mem_enc_register_region+0x81/0x130 [kvm_amd]
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Fixes: 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup: accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"")
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> [6.6+]
>
> So we want something against Linus mainline for backporting ease.
>
> >    3. Rebased onto the latest mm-unstable
>
> mm-unstable is quite different - memfd_pin_folios() doesn't exist in
> mainline!
>
> So can you please prepare the fix against current -linus?  I'll hang
> onto this patch to guide myself when I redo Vivek's "mm/gup: Introduce
> memfd_pin_folios() for pinning memfd folios" series on top.

Sure, I'm going to come up with another patch on top of Linus's tree.

>
>
>