Re: [PATCH net-next] vhost: use "checked" versions of get_user() and put_user()

Michael S. Tsirkin
2025-11-27T06:31:46Z

On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:11:57AM +0000, Jon Kohler wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 2025, at 8:08 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:48 AM Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 5:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025, at 07:04, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:45 AM Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 19, 2025, at 8:57 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:35 AM Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Same deal goes for __put_user() vs put_user by way of commit
> >>>>> e3aa6243434f ("ARM: 8795/1: spectre-v1.1: use put_user() for __put_user()”)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at arch/arm/mm/Kconfig, there are a variety of scenarios
> >>>>> where CONFIG_CPU_SPECTRE will be enabled automagically. Looking at
> >>>>> commit 252309adc81f ("ARM: Make CONFIG_CPU_V7 valid for 32bit ARMv8 implementations")
> >>>>> it says that "ARMv8 is a superset of ARMv7", so I’d guess that just
> >>>>> about everything ARM would include this by default?
> >>>
> >>> I think the more relevant commit is for 64-bit Arm here, but this does
> >>> the same thing, see 84624087dd7e ("arm64: uaccess: Don't bother
> >>> eliding access_ok checks in __{get, put}_user").
> >>
> >> Ah! Right, this is definitely the important bit, as it makes it
> >> crystal clear that these are exactly the same thing. The current
> >> code is:
> >> #define get_user __get_user
> >> #define put_user __put_user
> >>
> >> So, this patch changing from __* to regular versions is a no-op
> >> on arm side of the house, yea?
> >>
> >>> I would think that if we change the __get_user() to get_user()
> >>> in this driver, the same should be done for the
> >>> __copy_{from,to}_user(), which similarly skips the access_ok()
> >>> check but not the PAN/SMAP handling.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, thats a good call out. I’d file that under one battle
> >> at a time. Let’s get get/put user dusted first, then go down
> >> that road?
> >>
> >>> In general, the access_ok()/__get_user()/__copy_from_user()
> >>> pattern isn't really helpful any more, as Linus already
> >>> explained. I can't tell from the vhost driver code whether
> >>> we can just drop the access_ok() here and use the plain
> >>> get_user()/copy_from_user(), or if it makes sense to move
> >>> to the newer user_access_begin()/unsafe_get_user()/
> >>> unsafe_copy_from_user()/user_access_end() and try optimize
> >>> out a few PAN/SMAP flips in the process.
> >
> > Right, according to my testing in the past, PAN/SMAP is a killer for
> > small packet performance (PPS).
>
> For sure, every little bit helps along that path
>
> >
> >>
> >> In general, I think there are a few spots where we might be
> >> able to optimize (vhost_get_vq_desc perhaps?) as that gets
> >> called quite a bit and IIRC there are at least two flips
> >> in there that perhaps we could elide to one? An investigation
> >> for another day I think.
> >
> > Did you mean trying to read descriptors in a batch, that would be
> > better and with IN_ORDER it would be even faster as a single (at most
> > two) copy_from_user() might work (without the need to use
> > user_access_begin()/user_access_end().
>
> Yep. I haven’t fully thought through it, just a drive-by idea
> from looking at code for the recent work I’ve been doing, just
> scratching my head thinking there *must* be something we can do
> better there.
>
> Basically on the get rx/tx bufs path as well as the
> vhost_add_used_and_signal_n path, I think we could cluster together
> some of the get/put users and copy to/from’s. Would take some
> massaging, but I think there is something there.
>
> >>
> >> Anyhow, with this info - Jason - is there anything else you
> >> can think of that we want to double click on?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Ok thanks. Perhaps we can land this in next and let it soak in,
> though, knock on wood, I don’t think there will be fallout
> (famous last words!) ?

Yea I'll put this in linux-next and we'll see what happens.

--
MST