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  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:   Fri, 10 May 2019 16:47:53 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        Hans Westgaard Ry <hans.westgaard.ry@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next][PATCH v2 1/2] rds: handle unsupported rdma request to
 fs dax memory

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:38:31PM -0700, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On 5/10/2019 12:20 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:58:42AM -0700, santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com wrote:
> > > On 5/10/19 11:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:02:35AM -0700, santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > Why would you need to detect FS DAX memory? GUP users are not supposed
> > > > to care.
> > > > 
> > > > GUP is supposed to work just 'fine' - other than the usual bugs we
> > > > have with GUP and any FS backed memory.
> > > > 
> > > Am not saying there is any issue with GUP. Let me try to explain the
> > > issue first. You are aware of various discussions about doing DMA
> > > or RDMA on FS DAX memory. e.g [1] [2] [3]
> > > 
> > > One of the proposal to do safely RDMA on FS DAX memory is/was ODP
> > 
> > It is not about safety. ODP is required in all places that would have
> > used gup_longterm because ODP avoids th gup_longterm entirely.
> > 
> > > Currently RDS doesn't have support for ODP MR registration
> > > and hence we don't want user application to do RDMA using
> > > fastreg/fmr on FS DAX memory which isn't safe.
> > 
> > No, it is safe.
> > 
> > The only issue is you need to determine if this use of GUP is longterm
> > or short term. Longterm means userspace is in control of how long the
> > GUP lasts, short term means the kernel is in control.
> > 
> > ie posting a fastreg, sending the data, then un-GUP'ing on completion
> > is a short term GUP and it is fine on any type of memory.
> > 
> > So if it is a long term pin then it needs to be corrected and the only
> > thing the comment needs to explain is that it is a long term pin.
> > 
> Thanks for clarification. At least the distinction is clear to me now. Yes
> the key can be valid for long term till the remote RDMA IO is issued and
> finished. After that user can issue an invalidate/free key or
> upfront specify a flag to free/invalidate the key on remote IO
> completion.

Again, the test is if *userspace* controls this. So if userspace is
the thing that does the invalidate/free then it is long term. Sounds
like if it specifies the free/invalidate flag then it short term.

At this point you'd probably be better to keep both options.

> Will update the commit message accordingly. Can you please also
> comment on question on 2/2 ?

I have no advice on how to do compatability knobs in netdev - only
that sysctl does not seem appropriate.
 
Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists