netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] uaccess: user_access_begin_after_access

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:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 01:46:15 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] uaccess: user_access_begin_after_access_ok()

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:18:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/6/3 下午12:18, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:57:11AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > > How widely do you hope to stretch the user_access areas, anyway?
> > > 
> > > To have best performance for small packets like 64B, if possible, we want to
> > > disable STAC not only for the metadata access done by vhost accessors but
> > > also the data access via iov iterator.
> > If you want to try and convince Linus to go for that, make sure to Cc
> > me on that thread.  Always liked quality flame...
> > 
> > The same goes for interval tree lookups with uaccess allowed.  IOW, I _really_
> > doubt that it's a good idea.
> 
> 
> I see. We are just seeking an approach to perform better in order to compete
> with userspace dpdk backends.
> 
> I tried another approach of using direct mapping + mmu notifier [1] but the
> synchronization with MMU notifier is not easy to perform well.
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11133009/
> 
> 
> > 
> > > > Incidentally, who had come up with the name __vhost_get_user?
> > > > Makes for lovey WTF moment for readers - esp. in vhost_put_user()...
> > > 
> > > I think the confusion comes since it does not accept userspace pointer (when
> > > IOTLB is enabled).
> > > 
> > > How about renaming it as vhost_read()/vhost_write() ?
> > Huh?
> > 
> > __vhost_get_user() is IOTLB remapping of userland pointer.  It does not access
> > userland memory.  Neither for read, nor for write.  It is used by vhost_get_user()
> > and vhost_put_user().
> > 
> > Why would you want to rename it into vhost_read _or_ vhost_write, and in any case,
> > how do you give one function two names?  IDGI...
> 
> 
> I get you know, I thought you're concerning the names of
> vhost_get_user()/vhost_put_user() but actually __vhost_get_user().
> 
> Maybe something like __vhost_fetch_uaddr() is better.
> 
> Thanks


It's basically vhost_translate_uaddr isn't it?

BTW now I re-read it I don't understand __vhost_get_user_slow:


static void __user *__vhost_get_user_slow(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
                                          void __user *addr, unsigned int size,
                                          int type)
{
        int ret;

        ret = translate_desc(vq, (u64)(uintptr_t)addr, size, vq->iotlb_iov,
                             ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iotlb_iov),
                             VHOST_ACCESS_RO);

..
}

how does this work? how can we cast a pointer to guest address without
adding any offsets?



> 
> >