On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:34 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:06 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 02:58:33PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:44 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > > > > > Well, it was in vb2_get_vma() function, but now I see that it has been > > > > > > lost in fb639eb39154 and 6690c8c78c74 some time ago... > > > > > > > > > > There is no guarentee that holding a get on the file says anthing > > > > > about the VMA. This needed to check that the file was some special > > > > > kind of file that promised the VMA layout and file lifetime are > > > > > connected. > > > > > > > > > > Also, cloning a VMA outside the mm world is just really bad. That > > > > > would screw up many assumptions the drivers make. > > > > > > > > > > If it is all obsolete I say we hide it behind a default n config > > > > > symbol and taint the kernel if anything uses it. > > > > > > > > > > Add a big comment above the follow_pfn to warn others away from this > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > Sadly it's just verbally declared as deprecated and not formally noted > > > > anyway. There are a lot of userspace applications relying on user > > > > pointer support. > > > > > > userptr can stay, it's the userptr abuse for zerocpy buffer sharing > > > which doesn't work anymore. At least without major surgery (you'd need > > > an mmu notifier to zap mappings and recreate them, and that pretty > > > much breaks the v4l model of preallocating all buffers to make sure we > > > never underflow the buffer queue). And static mappings are not coming > > > back I think, we'll go ever more into the direction of dynamic > > > mappings and moving stuff around as needed. > > > > Right, and to be clear, the last time I saw a security flaw of this > > magnitude from a subsystem badly mis-designing itself, Linus's > > knee-jerk reaction was to propose to remove the whole subsystem. > > > > Please don't take status-quo as acceptable, V4L community has to work > > to resolve this, uABI breakage or not. The follow_pfn related code > > must be compiled out of normal distro kernel builds. > > I think the userptr zero-copy hack should be able to go away indeed, > given that we now have CMA that allows having carveouts backed by > struct pages and having the memory represented as DMA-buf normally. Not sure whether there's a confusion here: dma-buf supports memory not backed by struct page. > How about the regular userptr use case, though? > > The existing code resolves the user pointer into pages by following > the get_vaddr_frames() -> frame_vector_to_pages() -> > sg_alloc_table_from_pages() / vm_map_ram() approach. > get_vaddr_frames() seems to use pin_user_pages() behind the scenes if > the vma is not an IO or a PFNMAP, falling back to follow_pfn() > otherwise. Yeah pin_user_pages is fine, it's just the VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP vma that don't work. > > Is your intention to drop get_vaddr_frames() or we could still keep > using it and if vec->is_pfns is true: > a) if CONFIG_VIDEO_LEGACY_PFN_USERPTR is set, taint the kernel > b) otherwise just undo and fail? I'm typing that patch series (plus a pile more) right now. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
