On 10/31/20 7:45 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 3:55 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/30/20 3:08 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
By removing this check from this location, and changing from
pin_user_pages_locked() to pin_user_pages_fast(), I *think* we end up
losing the check entirely. Is that intended? If so it could use a comment
somewhere to explain why.
Yeah this wasn't intentional. I think I needed to drop the _locked
version to prep for FOLL_LONGTERM, and figured _fast is always better.
But I didn't realize that _fast doesn't have the vma checks, gup.c got
me a bit confused.
Actually, I thought that the change to _fast was a very nice touch, btw.
I'll remedy this in all the patches where this applies (because a
VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP can point at struct page backed memory, and that
exact use-case is what we want to stop with the unsafe_follow_pfn work
since it wreaks things like cma or security).
Aside: I do wonder whether the lack for that check isn't a problem.
VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP generally means driver managed, which means the
driver isn't going to consult the page pin count or anything like that
(at least not necessarily) when revoking or moving that memory, since
we're assuming it's totally under driver control. So if pup_fast can
get into such a mapping, we might have a problem.
-Daniel
Yes. I don't know why that check is missing from the _fast path.
Probably just an oversight, seeing as how it's in the slow path. Maybe
the appropriate response here is to add a separate patch that adds the
check.
I wonder if I'm overlooking something, but it certainly seems correct to
do that.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
