Received: by 2002:a25:23cc:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j195csp101262ybj; Wed, 6 May 2020 12:32:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIXBrlKpCvJpkYPH0jKSdm4ZPNhEmDG7SChS3SCGm8Y/ldMf5YSFiL0/LjqUFRlWlIKgRn4 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2558:: with SMTP id j24mr9155078ejb.72.1588793549286; Wed, 06 May 2020 12:32:29 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1588793549; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=U15LJezVU6Pb602pZXLwnzAusXooeXgWnggquAZbiDtACuZtRTAjgoSKDJ3K40FGit vusqSH+qPYDzXE0WCc0VNfevsw1JQi7bfRDgPmgmKMQWaG2wgd0GfyaQ7oDF2qf8B07d QDfNYey6pFCbR/+8G0O4mxw9SbLUwOpst9TxIzCYgjCnNlkiZeLuFV6h0kiVQEggDNs4 8eerHX2LXB7g4wnHA1hfMvKb4BPp4GxXWjOGdyuD2kjZYupw1ymvrp0mQtgzl+ZuusTG 0egH9P0zeWhUQoZVKwyRrZuCJPnv8DMjSM6GxY4UWprZd/kJskc4yYmZlq2LCVNu23uV Rm1A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=if5qgNlscRmpJPzG9Z3gnyaxZ0iIBynHsVjhr1Dlctg=; b=kIZDUyD9xeDI4bheFT39U5NIYbcxlqzYJW04oZQAyRRi4n6RkrAmb5cNEYBnT2qGt7 o4TwOzeBqHtyF5DsLGRBKHoQgA2mZB1NhE+6JRPynqB5N5bwjwerW/059Za1LXvvXwAs olkun5RCmaS3lBTqMVuHZydr4Ej/Oy5kLrhz0aTGG+EJWX1g5zqOQCsdOohmMsRdjlVe fclVw8NKU2Fs9gEWGVuEjRV5KvhrPRv1V32yfPcmWs6/waHxmoZqIoQfsHrrFnSvh9Hr 9aljorJFYbSdofMVoMOZ0iQm3IEdOhzSlfnTHkvQCuTEYdDYHtFo95fOA5h6fsn5+Yu6 o9rA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=eyheCbu3; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ha13si1603031ejb.390.2020.05.06.12.32.05; Wed, 06 May 2020 12:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=eyheCbu3; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730036AbgEFQIy (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 6 May 2020 12:08:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37448 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729418AbgEFQIx (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2020 12:08:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x141.google.com (mail-lf1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::141]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 168D8C061A0F; Wed, 6 May 2020 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x141.google.com with SMTP id x73so1827306lfa.2; Wed, 06 May 2020 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=if5qgNlscRmpJPzG9Z3gnyaxZ0iIBynHsVjhr1Dlctg=; b=eyheCbu3Wl4jWBLi16KmwXC3GUZfSR8nyYtYtWYhHzvEAIgisTgNndWd+2/Dmn4Fu3 1/oZO1IAPn6+vOlMTBDdlshLkF7l+t81nke8HHUt/QG94oWJqyYv91zK/x8cIh2JkzYY SiY6Acsis1eShDIqatzkzYNXXugeecGd27RlgztExMUWAy7ZyTg+hq899Yt9jwljo6NT oTUEHhn9ghJ9p/zYohANqpmvT5SK6bz6NY+aHmz3H2IcRdRkvmLUpcLxtsR0QBj8Wziu Vesw1YJeeNK8g67yToViiZOrPAaIQJBycwOimRy0oehpSLGYq4Y838PHAzbbzZBH0LR8 sHlQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=if5qgNlscRmpJPzG9Z3gnyaxZ0iIBynHsVjhr1Dlctg=; b=iHd6nt9IcjtqEYsGsJqaL+Ll2ZHXzeeiPgI56bQu28tzvsIQF6Zans+BjzBHEQ+mlH RGAZTGfnqd0Ea1NjUv/J+qPTeiFL0oX7WYgdeyaMQMGqlKLRXOwrDgMmo97RaiSaXInZ ZXVgpqFxoxTRXF61ciDivbaTPMNjigKok40ddkjV2JeEH5EewhwXMvs3Nhg+R7q8dDIL /iZkLNy9iOy2QQLGXwLSnvoDdgX2aHZyFGEXenxhWzm4UacrZGsG1FLfbifjx3qi+8Yw mDkR7R3U1ZkAa+RGfP6xAm+oAiC8xDB2P4n1+2muBXCIg6VQCO77+NK16aPAQt4lCYVR elGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pubbj+LscFvT8jQXhpE4Wb50njhBJxa/SLBTyRtOC1NumS8Hncwf qYCXi8wQk9yFseJvujT18WGR2M1y6pR28Fo/WZ0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4105:: with SMTP id b5mr5786969lfi.94.1588781331398; Wed, 06 May 2020 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1588706059-4208-1-git-send-email-jrdr.linux@gmail.com> <0bfe4a8a-0d91-ef9b-066f-2ea7c68571b3@nvidia.com> <20200506100649.GI17863@quack2.suse.cz> <20200506125930.GJ17863@quack2.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200506125930.GJ17863@quack2.suse.cz> From: Souptick Joarder Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 21:38:40 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/gup.c: Updated return value of {get|pin}_user_pages_fast() To: Jan Kara Cc: John Hubbard , Tony Luck , fenghua.yu@intel.com, Rob Springer , Todd Poynor , benchan@chromium.org, Greg KH , Jens Wiklander , Andrew Morton , santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com, "David S. Miller" , kuba@kernel.org, Ira Weiny , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , inux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" , tee-dev@lists.linaro.org, Linux-MM , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:29 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 06-05-20 17:51:39, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:36 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > On Wed 06-05-20 02:06:56, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:08 AM John Hubbard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2020-05-05 12:14, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > > > > Currently {get|pin}_user_pages_fast() have 3 return value 0, -errno > > > > > > and no of pinned pages. The only case where these two functions will > > > > > > return 0, is for nr_pages <= 0, which doesn't find a valid use case. > > > > > > But if at all any, then a -ERRNO will be returned instead of 0, which > > > > > > means {get|pin}_user_pages_fast() will have 2 return values -errno & > > > > > > no of pinned pages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Update all the callers which deals with return value 0 accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, seems a little shaky. In order to do this safely, I'd recommend > > > > > first changing gup_fast/pup_fast so so that they return -EINVAL if > > > > > the caller specified nr_pages==0, and of course auditing all callers, > > > > > to ensure that this won't cause problems. > > > > > > > > While auditing it was figured out, there are 5 callers which cares for > > > > return value > > > > 0 of gup_fast/pup_fast. What problem it might cause if we change > > > > gup_fast/pup_fast > > > > to return -EINVAL and update all the callers in a single commit ? > > > > > > Well, first I'd ask a different question: Why do you want to change the > > > current behavior? It's not like the current behavior is confusing. Callers > > > that pass >0 pages can happily rely on the simple behavior of < 0 return on > > > error or > 0 return if we mapped some pages. Callers that can possibly ask > > > to map 0 pages can get 0 pages back - kind of expected - and I don't see > > > any benefit in trying to rewrite these callers to handle -EINVAL instead... > > > > Callers with a request to map 0 pages doesn't have a valid use case. But if any > > caller end up doing it mistakenly, -errno should be returned to caller > > rather than 0 > > which will indicate more precisely that map 0 pages is not a valid > > request from caller. > > Well, I believe this depends on the point of view. Similarly as reading 0 > bytes is successful, we could consider mapping 0 pages successful as well. > And there can be valid cases where number of pages to map is computed from > some input and when 0 pages should be mapped, it is not a problem and your > change would force such callers to special case this with explicitely > checking for 0 pages to map and not calling GUP in that case at all. > > I'm not saying what you propose is necessarily bad, I just say I don't find > it any better than the current behavior and so IMO it's not worth the > churn. Now if you can come up with some examples of current in-kernel users > who indeed do get the handling of the return value wrong, I could be > convinced otherwise. There are 5 callers of {get|pin}_user_pages_fast(). arch/ia64/kernel/err_inject.c#L145 staging/gasket/gasket_page_table.c#L489 Checking return value 0 doesn't make sense for above 2. drivers/platform/goldfish/goldfish_pipe.c#L277 net/rds/rdma.c#L165 drivers/tee/tee_shm.c#L262 These 3 callers have calculated the no of pages value before passing it to {get|pin}_user_pages_fast(). But if they end up passing nr_pages <= 0, a return value of either 0 or -EINVAL doesn't going to harm any existing behavior of callers. IMO, it is safe to return -errno for nr_pages <= 0, for {get|pin}_user_pages_fast().