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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B1B85771-B211-4FCC-AEEF-BDFD37332C25@vmware.com>
 <20210107200402.31095-1-aarcange@redhat.com> <20210107202525.GD504133@ziepe.ca>
 <X/eA/f1r5GXvcRWH@redhat.com> <20210108133649.GE504133@ziepe.ca>
 <X/iPtCktcQHwuK5T@redhat.com> <20210108181945.GF504133@ziepe.ca> <CALCETrVWGZ5MkN6S+o_h5isOHKVpjwSz-jyXSsp9VJjVOYOyyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVWGZ5MkN6S+o_h5isOHKVpjwSz-jyXSsp9VJjVOYOyyg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:38:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiaYFkHogsOohx6WPY+kC1061OtiPL1qv=1w-ovKiSpcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] page_count can't be used to decide when wp_page_copy
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:31 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Can we just remove vmsplice() support?  We could make it do a normal
> copy, thereby getting rid of a fair amount of nastiness and potential
> attacks.  Even ignoring issues relating to the length of time that the
> vmsplice reference is alive, we also have whatever problems could be
> caused by a malicious or misguided user vmsplice()ing some memory and
> then modifying it.

Well, that "misguided user" is kind of the point, originally. That's
what zero-copying is all about.

But we could certainly remove it in favor of copying, because
zero-copy has seldom really been a huge advantage in practice outside
of benchmarks.

That said, I continue to not buy into Andrea's argument that
page_count() is wrong.

Instead, the argument is:

 (1) COW can never happen "too much": the definition of a private
mapping is that you have your own copy of the data.

 (2) the one counter case I feel is valid is page pinning when used
for a special "pseudo-shared memory" thing and that's basically what
FOLL_GUP does.

So _regardless_ of any vmsplice issues, I actually think that those
two basic rules should be our guiding principle.

And the corollary to (2) is that COW must absolutely NEVER re-use too
little. And that _was_ the bug with vmsplice, in that it allowed
re-use that it shouldn't have.

           Linus