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:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:50:52 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <>
To:     "Weiny, Ira" <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        "" <>,
        "Marciniszyn, Mike" <>,
        "Dalessandro, Dennis" <>,
        Doug Ledford <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add gup fast + longterm and use it in HFI1

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:40:02PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:

> > Many drivers do this, the 'doorbell' is a PCI -> CPU thing of some sort
> My surprise is why does _userspace_ allocate this memory?

Well, userspace needs to read the memory, so either userpace allocates
it and the kernel GUP's it, or userspace mmap's a kernel page which
was DMA mapped.

The GUP version lets the doorbells have lower alignment than a PAGE,
and thes RDMA drivers hard requires GUP->DMA to function..

So why not use a umem here? It already has to work.

> > > This does not seem to be allocating memory regions.  Jason, do you
> > > want a patch to just convert these calls and consider it legacy code?
> > 
> > It needs to use umem like all the other drivers on this path.
> > Otherwise it doesn't get the page pinning logic right
> Not sure what you mean regarding the pinning logic?

The RLIMIT_MEMLOCK stuff and so on.

> > There is also something else rotten with these longterm callsites,
> > they seem to have very different ideas how to handle
> > 
> > ie vfio doesn't even touch pinned_vm.. and rdma is applying
> > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to mm->pinned_vm, while vfio is using locked_vm.. No
> > idea which is right, but they should be the same, and this pattern should
> > probably be in core code someplace.
> Neither do I.  But AFAIK pinned_vm is a subset of locked_vm.

I thought so..

> So should we be accounting both of the counters?

Someone should check :)

Since we don't increment locked_vm when we increment pinned_vm and
vfio only checke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK against locked_vm one can certainly
exceed the limit by mixing and matching RDMA and VFIO pins in the same
process. Sure seems like there is a bug somewhere here.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists