| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2507101802220.605088@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 18:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Abinash Singh <abinashsinghlalotra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/gntdev: remove struct gntdev_copy_batch from stack
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.07.25 21:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2025, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > When compiling the kernel with LLVM, the following warning was issued:
> > >
> > > drivers/xen/gntdev.c:991: warning: stack frame size (1160) exceeds
> > > limit (1024) in function 'gntdev_ioctl'
> > >
> > > The main reason is struct gntdev_copy_batch which is located on the
> > > stack and has a size of nearly 1kb.
> > >
> > > For performance reasons it shouldn't by just dynamically allocated
> > > instead, so allocate a new instance when needed and instead of freeing
> > > it put it into a list of free structs anchored in struct gntdev_priv.
> > >
> > > Fixes: a4cdb556cae0 ("xen/gntdev: add ioctl for grant copy")
> > > Reported-by: Abinash Singh <abinashsinghlalotra@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/xen/gntdev-common.h | 4 +++
> > > drivers/xen/gntdev.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev-common.h b/drivers/xen/gntdev-common.h
> > > index 9c286b2a1900..ac8ce3179ba2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev-common.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev-common.h
> > > @@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ struct gntdev_priv {
> > > /* lock protects maps and freeable_maps. */
> > > struct mutex lock;
> > > + /* Free instances of struct gntdev_copy_batch. */
> > > + struct gntdev_copy_batch *batch;
> > > + struct mutex batch_lock;
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DMA_ALLOC
> > > /* Device for which DMA memory is allocated. */
> > > struct device *dma_dev;
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > > index 61faea1f0663..1f2160765618 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > > @@ -56,6 +56,18 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Derek G. Murray
> > > <Derek.Murray@...cam.ac.uk>, "
> > > "Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>");
> > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("User-space granted page access driver");
> > > +#define GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH 16
> > > +
> > > +struct gntdev_copy_batch {
> > > + struct gnttab_copy ops[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > + struct page *pages[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > + s16 __user *status[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > + unsigned int nr_ops;
> > > + unsigned int nr_pages;
> > > + bool writeable;
> > > + struct gntdev_copy_batch *next;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static unsigned int limit = 64*1024;
> > > module_param(limit, uint, 0644);
> > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(limit,
> > > @@ -584,6 +596,8 @@ static int gntdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct
> > > file *flip)
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&priv->maps);
> > > mutex_init(&priv->lock);
> > > + mutex_init(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GNTDEV_DMABUF
> > > priv->dmabuf_priv = gntdev_dmabuf_init(flip);
> > > if (IS_ERR(priv->dmabuf_priv)) {
> > > @@ -608,6 +622,7 @@ static int gntdev_release(struct inode *inode, struct
> > > file *flip)
> > > {
> > > struct gntdev_priv *priv = flip->private_data;
> > > struct gntdev_grant_map *map;
> > > + struct gntdev_copy_batch *batch;
> > > pr_debug("priv %p\n", priv);
> > > @@ -620,6 +635,14 @@ static int gntdev_release(struct inode *inode,
> > > struct file *flip)
> > > }
> > > mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
> > > + mutex_lock(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > + while (priv->batch) {
> > > + batch = priv->batch;
> > > + priv->batch = batch->next;
> > > + kfree(batch);
> > > + }
> > > + mutex_unlock(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GNTDEV_DMABUF
> > > gntdev_dmabuf_fini(priv->dmabuf_priv);
> > > #endif
> > > @@ -785,17 +808,6 @@ static long gntdev_ioctl_notify(struct gntdev_priv
> > > *priv, void __user *u)
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > > -#define GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH 16
> > > -
> > > -struct gntdev_copy_batch {
> > > - struct gnttab_copy ops[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > - struct page *pages[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > - s16 __user *status[GNTDEV_COPY_BATCH];
> > > - unsigned int nr_ops;
> > > - unsigned int nr_pages;
> > > - bool writeable;
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > static int gntdev_get_page(struct gntdev_copy_batch *batch, void __user
> > > *virt,
> > > unsigned long *gfn)
> > > {
> > > @@ -953,36 +965,53 @@ static int gntdev_grant_copy_seg(struct
> > > gntdev_copy_batch *batch,
> > > static long gntdev_ioctl_grant_copy(struct gntdev_priv *priv, void
> > > __user *u)
> > > {
> > > struct ioctl_gntdev_grant_copy copy;
> > > - struct gntdev_copy_batch batch;
> > > + struct gntdev_copy_batch *batch;
> > > unsigned int i;
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > if (copy_from_user(©, u, sizeof(copy)))
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > - batch.nr_ops = 0;
> > > - batch.nr_pages = 0;
> > > + mutex_lock(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > + if (!priv->batch) {
> > > + batch = kmalloc(sizeof(*batch), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + } else {
> > > + batch = priv->batch;
> > > + priv->batch = batch->next;
> > > + }
> > > + mutex_unlock(&priv->batch_lock);
> >
> > I am concerned about the potentially unbounded amount of memory that
> > could be allocated this way.
>
> Unbounded? It can be at most the number of threads using the interface
> concurrently.
That's what I meant
> > The mutex is already a potentially very slow operation. Could we instead
> > allocate a single batch, and if it is currently in use, use the mutex to
> > wait until it becomes available?
>
> As this interface is e.g. used by the qemu based qdisk backend, the chances
> are very high that there are concurrent users. This would hurt multi-ring
> qdisk quite badly!
>
> It would be possible to replace the mutex with a spinlock and do the kmalloc()
> outside the locked region.
>
> >
> > I am also OK with the current approach but I thought I would ask.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > + if (!batch)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + batch->nr_ops = 0;
> > > + batch->nr_pages = 0;
> > > for (i = 0; i < copy.count; i++) {
> > > struct gntdev_grant_copy_segment seg;
> > > if (copy_from_user(&seg, ©.segments[i],
> > > sizeof(seg))) {
> > > ret = -EFAULT;
> > > + gntdev_put_pages(batch);
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > > - ret = gntdev_grant_copy_seg(&batch, &seg,
> > > ©.segments[i].status);
> > > - if (ret < 0)
> > > + ret = gntdev_grant_copy_seg(batch, &seg,
> > > ©.segments[i].status);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + gntdev_put_pages(batch);
> > > goto out;
> > > + }
> > > cond_resched();
> > > }
> > > - if (batch.nr_ops)
> > > - ret = gntdev_copy(&batch);
> > > - return ret;
> > > + if (batch->nr_ops)
> > > + ret = gntdev_copy(batch);
> > > +
> > > + out:
> > > + mutex_lock(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > + batch->next = priv->batch;
> > > + priv->batch = batch;
> > > + mutex_unlock(&priv->batch_lock);
> > > - out:
> > > - gntdev_put_pages(&batch);
> >
> > One change from before is that in case of no errors, gntdev_put_pages is
> > not called anymore. Do we want that? Specifically, we are missing the
> > call to unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock
>
> I don't think you are right. There was a "return ret" before the "out:"
> label before my patch.
You are right, I missed it.
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists