netdev - Re: [PATCH resend mm,net-next 2/3] mm: Add vm_insert

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]

Message-ID: <CAOFY-A16-eba-aNO+=062jy67cRs7-YSGoctp4GVApBnhYFPhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:09:13 -0800
From:   Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arjun Roy <arjunroy.kdev@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend mm,net-next 2/3] mm: Add vm_insert_pages().

I think at least to start it probably makes sense to keep regular
vm_insert_page() around - smaller stack used, less branches, if you
know you just need one page - not sure if gcc would err towards
smaller binary or not when compiling.

Regarding the page_count() check - as far as I can tell that's just
checking to make sure that at least *someone* has a reference to the
page before inserting it; in the zerocopy case we most definitely do
but I guess a bad caller could call it with a bad page argument and
this would guard against that.

Actually, I appear to have fat fingered it - I intended for this check
to be in there but seem to have forgotten (per the comment "/* Defer
page refcount checking till we're about to map that page. */" but with
no actual check). So that check should go inside
insert_page_in_batch_locked(), right before the
validate_page_before_insert() check. I'll send an updated fixup diff
shortly.

-Arjun

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 6:41 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:59:57 -0800 Arjun Roy <arjunroy.kdev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Add the ability to insert multiple pages at once to a user VM with
> > lower PTE spinlock operations.
> >
> > The intention of this patch-set is to reduce atomic ops for
> > tcp zerocopy receives, which normally hits the same spinlock multiple
> > times consecutively.
>
> Seems sensible, thanks.  Some other vm_insert_page() callers might want
> to know about this, but I can't immediately spot any which appear to be
> high bandwidth.
>
> Is there much point in keeping the vm_insert_page() implementation
> around?  Replace it with
>
> static inline int
> vm_insert_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>                struct page *page)
> {
>         return vm_insert_pages(vma, addr, &page, 1);
> }
>
> ?
>
> Also, vm_insert_page() does
>
>         if (!page_count(page))
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
> and this was not carried over into vm_insert_pages().  How come?
>
> I don't know what that test does - it was added by Linus in the
> original commit a145dd411eb28c83.  It's only been 15 years so I'm sure
> he remembers ;)