From: Matthew Wilcox
> Sent: 22 June 2021 23:04
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 09:55:09PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: David Howells
> > > Sent: 22 June 2021 17:27
> > >
> > > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:20:40PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > and wondering if the iov_iter_fault_in_readable() is actually effective.
> > > > > Yes, it can make sure that the page we're intending to modify is dragged
> > > > > into the pagecache and marked uptodate so that it can be read from, but is
> > > > > it possible for the page to then get reclaimed before we get to
> > > > > iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic()? a_ops->write_begin() could potentially
> > > > > take a long time, say if it has to go and get a lock/lease from a server.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is. So what? We'll just retry. You *can't* take faults while
> > > > holding some pages locked; not without shitloads of deadlocks.
> > >
> > > In that case, can we amend the comment immediately above
> > > iov_iter_fault_in_readable()?
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Bring in the user page that we will copy from _first_.
> > > * Otherwise there's a nasty deadlock on copying from the
> > > * same page as we're writing to, without it being marked
> > > * up-to-date.
> > > *
> > > * Not only is this an optimisation, but it is also required
> > > * to check that the address is actually valid, when atomic
> > > * usercopies are used, below.
> > > */
> > > if (unlikely(iov_iter_fault_in_readable(i, bytes))) {
> > >
> > > The first part suggests this is for deadlock avoidance. If that's not true,
> > > then this should perhaps be changed.
> >
> > I'd say something like:
> > /*
> > * The actual copy_from_user() is done with a lock held
> > * so cannot fault in missing pages.
> > * So fault in the pages first.
> > * If they get paged out the inatomic usercopy will fail
> > * and the whole operation is retried.
> > *
> > * Hopefully there are enough memory pages available to
> > * stop this looping forever.
> > */
> >
> > It is perfectly possible for another application thread to
> > invalidate one of the buffer fragments after iov_iter_fault_in_readable()
> > return success - so it will then fail on the second pass.
> >
> > The maximum number of pages required is twice the maximum number
> > of iov fragments.
> > If the system is crawling along with no available memory pages
> > the same physical page could get used for two user pages.
>
> I would suggest reading the function before you suggest modifications
> to it.
>
> offset = (pos & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
> bytes = min_t(unsigned long, PAGE_SIZE - offset,
> iov_iter_count(i));
Right the transfer size is limited to PAGE_SIZE.
But the user supplied iov[] could be a lot of 2 byte buffers
all with base addresses (PAGE_SIZE * n - 1).
So you might need two pages for each iov[] fragment.
And you need not to recycle the earlier ones.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
