Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()

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

 



On 31.05.23 10:35, David Howells wrote:
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Make pin_user_pages*() leave a ZERO_PAGE unpinned if it extracts a pointer
to it from the page tables and make unpin_user_page*() correspondingly
ignore a ZERO_PAGE when unpinning.  We don't want to risk overrunning a
zero page's refcount as we're only allowed ~2 million pins on it -
something that userspace can conceivably trigger.

2 millions pins (FOLL_PIN, which increments the refcount by 1024) or 2 million
references ?

Definitely pins.  It's tricky because we've been using "pinned" to mean held
by a refcount or held by a flag too.


Yes, it would be clearer if we would be using "pinned" now only for FOLL_PIN and everything else is simply "taking a temporary reference on the page".

2 million pins on the zero page is in the realms of possibility.  It only
takes 32768 64-page DIO writes.

@@ -3079,6 +3096,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_user_pages_fast);
    *
    * FOLL_PIN means that the pages must be released via unpin_user_page(). Please
    * see Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst for further details.
+ *
+ * Note that if a zero_page is amongst the returned pages, it will not have
+ * pins in it and unpin_user_page() will not remove pins from it.
    */

"it will not have pins in it" sounds fairly weird to a non-native speaker.

Oh, I know.  The problem is that "pin" is now really ambiguous.  Can we change
"FOLL_PIN" to "FOLL_NAIL"?  Or maybe "FOLL_SCREW" - your pages are screwed if
you use DIO and fork at the same time.


I'm hoping that "pinning" will be "FOLL_PIN" (intention to access page content) and everything else is simply "taking a temporary page reference".

"Note that the refcount of any zero_pages returned among the pinned pages will
not be incremented, and unpin_user_page() will similarly not decrement it."

That's not really right (although it happens to be true), because we're
talking primarily about the pin counter, not the refcount - and they may be
separate.

In any case (FOLL_PIN/FOLL_GET) you increment/decrement the refcount. If we have a separate pincount, we increment/decrement the refcount by 1 when (un)pinning.

Sure, if we'd have a separate pincount we'd also not be modifying it.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux