From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:20:13 -0600 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Jan Kara Cc: Andrew Morton , John Hubbard , john.hubbard@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Christopher Lameter , Dan Williams , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , linux-rdma , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Jerome Glisse , Christoph Hellwig , Ralph Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions Message-ID: <20181011132013.GA5968@ziepe.ca> References: <20181008211623.30796-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181008211623.30796-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181008171442.d3b3a1ea07d56c26d813a11e@linux-foundation.org> <5198a797-fa34-c859-ff9d-568834a85a83@nvidia.com> <20181010164541.ec4bf53f5a9e4ba6e5b52a21@linux-foundation.org> <20181011084929.GB8418@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181011084929.GB8418@quack2.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > This is a real worry. If someone uses a mistaken put_page() then how > > will that bug manifest at runtime? Under what set of circumstances > > will the kernel trigger the bug? > > At runtime such bug will manifest as a page that can never be evicted from > memory. We could warn in put_page() if page reference count drops below > bare minimum for given user pin count which would be able to catch some > issues but it won't be 100% reliable. So at this point I'm more leaning > towards making get_user_pages() return a different type than just > struct page * to make it much harder for refcount to go wrong... At least for the infiniband code being used as an example here we take the struct page from get_user_pages, then stick it in a sgl, and at put_page time we get the page back out of the sgl via sg_page() So type safety will not help this case... I wonder how many other users are similar? I think this is a pretty reasonable flow for DMA with user pages. Jason