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;
Message-ID: <950f095f-5182-6f14-cdc3-ce5eb35884ca@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 11:24:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <4f479af6-2865-4bb3-98b9-78bba9d2065f@lucifer.local>
 <89c7f535-8fc5-4480-845f-de94f335d332@lucifer.local>
 <20230525223953.225496-1-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <20230525223953.225496-2-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <520730.1685090615@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <522654.1685092526@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <522654.1685092526@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26.05.23 11:15, David Howells wrote:
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> iov_iter_extract_pages(), on the other hand, is only used in two places
>>> with these patches and the pins are always released with
>>> unpin_user_page*() so it's a lot easier to audit.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. I guess these are the cases where you're
>> likely to see zero page usage, but since this is changing all PUP*() callers
>> don't you need to audit all of those too?
> 
> I don't think it should be necessary.  This only affects pages obtained from
> gup with FOLL_PIN - and, so far as I know, those always have to be released
> with unpin_user_page*() which is part of the gup API and thus it should be
> transparent to the users.

Right, and even code like like 873aefb376bb ("vfio/type1: Unpin zero 
pages") would handle it transparently, because they also call 
unpin_user_page().

[we can remove 873aefb376bb even without this change way because it uses 
FOLL_LONGTERM that shouldn't return the shared zeropage anymore ]

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb