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:   Fri, 26 May 2023 10:23:46 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()
Message-ID: <859fa154-a0ea-4f7b-9f57-7e36107982b6@lucifer.local>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <522654.1685092526@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:15:26AM +0100, 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, I was only saying so in relation to you stating the need to audit,
for precisely this reason I wondered why you felt the need to :)

> Pages obtained FOLL_GET, on the other hand, aren't freed through the gup API -
> and there are a bunch of ways of releasing them - and getting additional refs
> too.

Yes that's a very good point! Sorry, in my enthusiasm for GUP reform this
thorny aspect slipped my mind...

As Christoph said though hopefully over time we can limit the use of FOLL_GET so
this becomes easier perhaps. Larger discussion on this area in [0] :)

[0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZGWnq%2FdAYELyKpTy@infradead.org/

>
> David
>