Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y865EIsHv3oyz+8U@casper.infradead.org>
References: <Y865EIsHv3oyz+8U@casper.infradead.org> <Y862ZL5umO30Vu/D@casper.infradead.org> <20230120175556.3556978-1-dhowells@redhat.com> <318138.1674491927@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] iov_iter: Improve page extraction (ref, pin or just list)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <324814.1674494391.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:19:51 +0000
Message-ID: <324815.1674494391@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> > Wouldn't that potentially make someone's entire malloc() heap entirely=
 NOCOW
> > if they did a single DIO to/from it.
> =

> Yes.  Would that be an actual problem for any real application?

Without auditing all applications that do direct I/O writes, it's hard to
say - but a big database engine, Oracle for example, forking off a process=
,
say, could cause a massive slow down as fork suddenly has to copy a huge
amount of malloc'd data unnecessarily[*].

[*] I'm making wild assumptions about how Oracle's DB engine works.

> > Also you only mention DIO read - but what about "start DIO write; fork=
();
> > touch buffer" in the parent - now the write buffer belongs to the chil=
d
> > and they can affect the parent's write.
> =

> I'm struggling to see the problem here.  If the child hasn't exec'd, the
> parent and child are still in the same security domain.  The parent
> could have modified the buffer before calling fork().

It could still inadvertently change the data its parent set to write out. =
 The
child *shouldn't* be able to change the parent's in-progress write.  The m=
ost
obvious problem would be in something that does DIO from a stack buffer, I
think.

David