So do we have a conclution about this patch?  or need more time to
study the possible risks

On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 08:25 +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:54:29PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 5/18/23 06:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 18.05.23 08:08, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 09:51, Christoph Hellwig <
> > > > hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:23:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > In general: if user space controls it -> possibly forever
> > > > > > -> long-term. Even
> > > > > > if in most cases it's a short delay: there is no trusting
> > > > > > on user space.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For example, iouring fixed buffers keep pages pinned until
> > > > > > user space
> > > > > > decides to unregistered the buffers -> long-term.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Short-term is, for example, something like O_DIRECT where
> > > > > > we pin -> DMA ->
> > > > > > unpin in essentially one operation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Btw, one thing that's been on my mind is that I think we got
> > > > > the
> > > > > polarity on FOLL_LONGTERM wrong.  Instead of opting into the
> > > > > long term
> > > > > behavior it really should be the default, with a
> > > > > FOLL_EPHEMERAL flag
> > > > > to opt out of it.  And every users of this flag is required
> > > > > to have
> > > > > a comment explaining the life time rules for the pin..
> 
> I couldn't agree more, based on my recent forays into GUP the
> interface
> continues to strike me as odd:-
> 
> - FOLL_GET is a wing and a prayer that nothing that
>   [folio|page]_maybe_dma_pinned() prevents happens in the brief
> period the
>   page is pinned/manipulated. So agree completely with David's
> concept of
>   unexporting that and perhaps carefully considering our use of
>   it. Obviously the comments around functions like gup_remote() make
> clear
>   that 'this page not be what you think it is' but I wonder whether
> many
>   callers of GUP _truly_ take that on board.
> 
> - FOLL_LONGTERM is entirely optional for PUP and you can just go
> ahead and
>   fragment page blocks to your heart's content. Of course this would
> be an
>   abuse, but abuses happen.
> 
> - With the recent change to PUP/FOLL_LONGTERM disallowing dirty
> tracked
>   file-backed mappings we're now really relying on this flag
> indicating a
>   _long term_ pin semantically. By defaulting to this being switched
> on, we
>   avoid cases of callers who might end up treating the won't
>   reclaim/etc. aspect of PUP as all they care about while ignoring
> the
>   MIGRATE_MOVABLE aspect.
> 
> > 
> > I see maybe 10 or 20 call sites today. So it is definitely feasible
> > to add
> > documentation at each, explaining the why it wants a long term pin.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, my efforts at e.g. dropping vmas has been eye-opening in
> actually
> quite how often a refactoring like this often ends up being more
> straightforward than you might imagine.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > It does look like a better approach to me given the very nature
> > > > of
> > > > user space pages.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, there is a lot of historical baggage. For example, FOLL_GET
> > > should be inaccessible to kernel modules completely at one point,
> > > to be only used by selected core-mm pieces.
> > 
> > Yes. When I first mass-converted call sites from gup to pup, I just
> > preserved FOLL_GET behavior in order to keep from changing too much
> > at
> > once. But I agree that that it would be nice to make FOLL_GET an
> > mm internal-only flag like FOLL_PIN.
> 
> Very glad you did that work! And totally understandable as to you
> being
> conservative with that, but I think we're at a point where there's
> more
> acceptance of incremental improvements to GUP as a whole.
> 
> I have another patch series saved up for _yet more_ changes on this.
> But
> mindful of churn I am trying to space them out... until Jason nudges
> me of
> course :)
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe we should even disallow passing in FOLL_LONGTERM as a flag
> > > and only provide functions like pin_user_pages() vs.
> > > pin_user_pages_longterm(). Then, discussions about conditional
> > > flag-setting are no more :)
> > > 
> > > ... or even use pin_user_pages_shortterm() vs. pin_user_pages()
> > > ... to make the default be longterm.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, it is true that having most gup flags be internal to mm does
> > tend
> > to avoid some bugs. But it's also a lot of churn. I'm still on the
> > fence
> > as to whether it's really a good move to do this for FOLL_LONGTERM
> > or
> > not. But it's really easy to push me off of fences. :)
> 
> *nudge* ;)
> 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > --
> > John Hubbard
> > NVIDIA
> > 
> 
> Looking at non-fast, non-FOLL_LONGTERM PUP callers (forgive me if I
> missed any):-
> 
> - pin_user_pages_remote() in process_vm_rw_single_vec() for the
>   process_vm_access functionality.
> 
> - pin_user_pages_remote() in user_event_enabler_write() in
>   kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c.
> 
> - pin_user_pages_unlocked() in ivtv_udma_setup() in
>   drivers/media/pci/ivtv/ivtv-udma.c and ivtv_yuv_prep_user_dma() in
> ivtv-yuv.c.
> 
> And none that actually directly invoke PUP without FOLL_LOGNTERM...
> That
> suggests that we could simply disallow non-FOLL_LONGTERM non-fast PUP
> calls
> altogether and move to pin_user_pages_longterm() [I'm happy to write
> a
> patch series doing this].
> 
> The ivtv callers look like they really actually want FOLL_LONGTERM
> unless
> I'm missing something so we should probably change that too?
> 
> I haven't surveyed the fast versions, but I think defaulting to
> FOLL_LONGTERM on them also makes sense.