Hi Daniel, On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 07:52:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:48 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:37:23PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > I'm not a mm/ expert, but, from what I understood from Daniel's patch > > > description is that this is unsafe *only if* __GFP_MOVABLE is used. > > > > No, it is unconditionally unsafe. The CMA movable mappings are > > specific VMAs that will have bad issues here, but there are other > > types too. > > > > The only way to do something at a VMA level is to have a list of OK > > VMAs, eg because they were creatd via a special mmap helper from the > > media subsystem. > > > > > Well, no drivers inside the media subsystem uses such flag, although > > > they may rely on some infrastructure that could be using it behind > > > the bars. > > > > It doesn't matter, nothing prevents the user from calling media APIs > > on mmaps it gets from other subsystems. > > I think a good first step would be to disable userptr of non struct > page backed storage going forward for any new hw support. Even on > existing drivers. dma-buf sharing has been around for long enough now > that this shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately right now this doesn't > seem to exist, so the entire problem keeps getting perpetuated. On the V4L2 side, I think we should disable USERPTR for any new driver, period. That's what I've been recommended when reviewing patches for several years already. It's a deprecated API, it should be phased out, which starts by not allowing any new use case. > > > If this is the case, the proper fix seems to have a GFP_NOT_MOVABLE > > > flag that it would be denying the core mm code to set __GFP_MOVABLE. > > > > We can't tell from the VMA these kinds of details.. > > > > It has to go the other direction, evey mmap that might be used as a > > userptr here has to be found and the VMA specially created to allow > > its use. At least that is a kernel only change, but will need people > > with the HW to do this work. > > I think the only reasonable way to keep this working is: > - add a struct dma_buf *vma_tryget_dma_buf(struct vm_area_struct *vma); > - add dma-buf export support to fbdev and v4l > - roll this out everywhere we still need it. > > Realistically this just isn't going to happen. And anything else just > reimplements half of dma-buf, which is kinda pointless (you need > minimally refcounting and some way to get at a promise of a permanent > sg list for dma. Plus probably the vmap for kernel cpu access. > > > > Please let address the issue on this way, instead of broken an > > > userspace API that it is there since 1991. > > > > It has happened before :( It took 4 years for RDMA to undo the uAPI > > breakage caused by a security fix for something that was a 15 years > > old bug. > > Yeah we have a bunch of these on the drm side too. Some of them are > really just "you have to upgrade userspace", and there's no real fix > for the security nightmare without that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
