Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:50:48 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, roland@purestorage.com,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mthca: Fix how mthca_map_user_db() calls gup
Message-ID: <20180125175048.GG10706@ziepe.ca>
References: <20180123205459.432-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <1516898063.27592.136.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1516898063.27592.136.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:34:23AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > - Should I be wrong about no callers already holding mmap_sem,
> >   I still think calling gup without the mutex makes sense for
> >   improved paralellism. Now, if callers can hold the mmap_sem,
> >   it's wrong to do copy_from_user right before calling mthca_map_user_db.
> 
> So, if I understand you correctly, we (well, you and Al would be more
> correct, we haven't looked into the situation yet, so Mellanox people
> that worked on this in the day might now, or someone taking the time to
> research it could find out) don't have a clear understanding of all the
> conditions this function is called under, and so we actually don't know
> what the best way forward is to fix it?

I looked at it enough to be confident that mthca_map_user_db is never
called with mmap_sem held.

Also pretty confident that mthca_unmap_user_db is never called with
mmap_sem.

So how about just grabbing mmap_sem around the call to get_user_pages
and no other changes?

Jason