On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:07:53AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:16:28AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:09:36AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:27:31AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> > > > The only instances of get_user_pages_remote() invocations which used the
> >> > > > vmas parameter were for a single page which can instead simply look up the
> >> > > > VMA directly. In particular:-
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - __update_ref_ctr() looked up the VMA but did nothing with it so we simply
> >> > > > remove it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - __access_remote_vm() was already using vma_lookup() when the original
> >> > > > lookup failed so by doing the lookup directly this also de-duplicates the
> >> > > > code.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This forms part of a broader set of patches intended to eliminate the vmas
> >> > > > parameter altogether.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > ---
> >> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c | 5 +++--
> >> > > > arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 2 +-
> >> > > > fs/exec.c | 2 +-
> >> > > > include/linux/mm.h | 2 +-
> >> > > > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 10 +++++-----
> >> > > > mm/gup.c | 12 ++++--------
> >> > > > mm/memory.c | 9 +++++----
> >> > > > mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
> >> > > > security/tomoyo/domain.c | 2 +-
> >> > > > virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 3 +--
> >> > > > 10 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> >> > > > index f5bcb0dc6267..74d8d4007dec 100644
> >> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> >> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> >> > > > @@ -437,8 +437,9 @@ static int __access_remote_tags(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >> > > > struct page *page = NULL;
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ret = get_user_pages_remote(mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, &page,
> >> > > > - &vma, NULL);
> >> > > > - if (ret <= 0)
> >> > > > + NULL);
> >> > > > + vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
> >> > > > + if (ret <= 0 || !vma)
> >> > > > break;
> >> > >
> >> > > Given the slightly tricky error handling, it would make sense to turn
> >> > > this pattern into a helper function:
> >> > >
> >> > > page = get_single_user_page_locked(mm, addr, gup_flags, &vma);
> >> > > if (IS_ERR(page))
> >> > > [..]
> >> > >
> >> > > static inline struct page *get_single_user_page_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >> > > unsigned long addr, int gup_flags, struct vm_area_struct **vma)
> >> > > {
> >> > > struct page *page;
> >> > > int ret;
> >> > >
> >> > > ret = get_user_pages_remote(*mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, &page, NULL, NULL);
> >> > > if (ret < 0)
> >> > > return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >> > > if (WARN_ON(ret == 0))
> >> > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >> > > *vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
> >> > > if (WARN_ON(!*vma) {
> >> > > put_user_page(page);
> >> > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >> > > }
> >> > > return page;
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > > It could be its own patch so this change was just a mechanical removal
> >> > > of NULL
> >> > >
> >> > > Jason
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, I think this would work better as a follow up patch however so as
> >> > not to distract too much from the core change.
> >>
> >> I don't think you should open code sketchy error handling in several
> >> places and then clean it up later. Just do it right from the start.
> >>
> >
> > Intent was to do smallest change possible (though through review that grew
> > of course), but I see your point, in this instance this is fiddly stuff and
> > probably better to abstract it to enforce correct handling.
> >
> > I'll respin + add something like this.
>
> Could you include in your description why looking up the vma after
> getting the page does not introduce a race?
>
> I am probably silly and just looking at this quickly but it does not
> seem immediately obvious why the vma and the page should match.
>
> I would not be surprised if you hold the appropriate mutex over the
> entire operation but it just isn't apparent from the diff.
>
> I am concerned because it is an easy mistake to refactor something into
> two steps and then discover you have introduced a race.
>
> Eric
>
The mmap_lock is held so VMAs cannot be altered and no such race can
occur. get_user_pages_remote() requires that the user calls it under the
lock so it is implicitly assured that this cannot happen.
I'll update the description to make this clear on the next spin!
(side-note: here is another irritating issue with GUP, we don't suffix with
_locked() consistently)
