Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:03:50 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        lizhe.67@bytedance.com, cohuck@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: remove useless judgement
Message-ID: <20220628130350.GN23621@ziepe.ca>
References: <20220627035109.73745-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
 <20220627160640.7edca0dd.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <7217566f-9c40-ae9d-6fd6-2ef93f13f853@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7217566f-9c40-ae9d-6fd6-2ef93f13f853@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:48:11AM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> For cpr, old qemu directly exec's new qemu, so task does not change.
> 
> To support fork+exec, the ownership test needs to be deleted or modified.
> 
> Pinned page accounting is another issue, as the parent counts pins in its
> mm->locked_vm.  If the child unmaps, it cannot simply decrement its own
> mm->locked_vm counter.

It is fine already:


	mm = async ? get_task_mm(dma->task) : dma->task->mm;
	if (!mm)
		return -ESRCH; /* process exited */

	ret = mmap_write_lock_killable(mm);
	if (!ret) {
		ret = __account_locked_vm(mm, abs(npage), npage > 0, dma->task,
					  dma->lock_cap);

Each 'dma' already stores a pointer to the mm that sourced it and only
manipulates the counter in that mm. AFAICT 'current' is not used
during unmap.

> As you and I have discussed, the count is also wrong in the direct
> exec model, because exec clears mm->locked_vm.

Really? Yikes, I thought exec would generate a new mm?

> I am thinking vfio could count pins in struct user locked_vm to handle both 
> models.  The user struct and its count would persist across direct exec,
> and be shared by parent and child for fork+exec.  However, that does change
> the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK value that applications must set, because the limit must
> accommodate vfio plus other sub-systems that count in user->locked_vm, which
> includes io_uring, skbuff, xdp, and perf.  Plus, the limit must accommodate all
> processes of that user, not just a single process.

We discussed this, for iommufd we are currently planning to go this
way and will See How it Goes.

Jason