lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()
On 31.05.23 10:35, David Howells wrote:
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-31 10:50    [W:0.304 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site