Re: [PATCH v6 07/19] kernel/user: Allow user::locked_vm to be usable for iommufd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 04:48:16PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:42:23PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 04:29:30PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > Following the pattern of io_uring, perf, skb, and bpf, iommfd will use
> > > user->locked_vm for accounting pinned pages. Ensure the value is included
> > > in the struct and export free_uid() as iommufd is modular.
> > > 
> > > user->locked_vm is the good accounting to use for ulimit because it is
> > > per-user, and the security sandboxing of locked pages is not supposed to
> > > be per-process. Other places (vfio, vdpa and infiniband) have used
> > > mm->pinned_vm and/or mm->locked_vm for accounting pinned pages, but this
> > > is only per-process and inconsistent with the new FOLL_LONGTERM users in
> > > the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Concurrent work is underway to try to put this in a cgroup, so everything
> > > can be consistent and the kernel can provide a FOLL_LONGTERM limit that
> > > actually provides security.
> > > 
> > > Tested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Lixiao Yang <lixiao.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Just curious: why does the subject say "user::locked_vm"? As opposed to
> > user->locked_vm? Made me think it's somehow related to rust in kernel or
> > whatever.
> 
> :: is the C++ way to say "member of a type", I suppose it is a typo
> and should be user_struct::locked_vm
> 
> The use of -> otherwise was to have some clarity about mm vs user
> structs.
> 
> Jason

I note that commit log says user->locked_vm and that's clear enough
IMHO, I'd leave C++ alone - IIRC yes you can write ptr->type::field but
no one does so it's not idiomatic, :: is more commonly used with static
members there. So this confuses more than it clarifies. But whatever,
hardly a blocker. Feel free to ignore.

-- 
MST




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux