From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-f199.google.com (mail-it1-f199.google.com [209.85.166.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8E26B0003 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it1-f199.google.com with SMTP id m67-v6so12773654ita.8 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id q185-v6sor21214000itd.33.2018.10.22.12.43.32 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:43:29 -0600 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions Message-ID: <20181022194329.GG30059@ziepe.ca> References: <20181008211623.30796-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181008211623.30796-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181008171442.d3b3a1ea07d56c26d813a11e@linux-foundation.org> <5198a797-fa34-c859-ff9d-568834a85a83@nvidia.com> <20181010164541.ec4bf53f5a9e4ba6e5b52a21@linux-foundation.org> <20181011084929.GB8418@quack2.suse.cz> <20181011132013.GA5968@ziepe.ca> <97e89e08-5b94-240a-56e9-ece2b91f6dbc@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <97e89e08-5b94-240a-56e9-ece2b91f6dbc@nvidia.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: John Hubbard Cc: Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , john.hubbard@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Christopher Lameter , Dan Williams , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , linux-rdma , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Jerome Glisse , Christoph Hellwig , Ralph Campbell On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:23:24PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 10/11/18 6:20 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > >>> This is a real worry. If someone uses a mistaken put_page() then how > >>> will that bug manifest at runtime? Under what set of circumstances > >>> will the kernel trigger the bug? > >> > >> At runtime such bug will manifest as a page that can never be evicted from > >> memory. We could warn in put_page() if page reference count drops below > >> bare minimum for given user pin count which would be able to catch some > >> issues but it won't be 100% reliable. So at this point I'm more leaning > >> towards making get_user_pages() return a different type than just > >> struct page * to make it much harder for refcount to go wrong... > > > > At least for the infiniband code being used as an example here we take > > the struct page from get_user_pages, then stick it in a sgl, and at > > put_page time we get the page back out of the sgl via sg_page() > > > > So type safety will not help this case... I wonder how many other > > users are similar? I think this is a pretty reasonable flow for DMA > > with user pages. > > > > That is true. The infiniband code, fortunately, never mixes the two page > types into the same pool (or sg list), so it's actually an easier example > than some other subsystems. But, yes, type safety doesn't help there. I can > take a moment to look around at the other areas, to quantify how much a type > safety change might help. Are most (all?) of the places working with SGLs? Maybe we could just have a 'get_user_pages_to_sgl' and 'put_pages_sgl' sort of interface that handled all this instead of trying to make something that is struct page based? It seems easier to get an extra bit for user/!user in the SGL datastructure? Jason