From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: alex.williamson@redhat.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
kwankhede@nvidia.com, peterx@redhat.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "vfio/type1: Remove locked page accounting workqueue" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 10:36:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <14950101764366@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
vfio/type1: Remove locked page accounting workqueue
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
vfio-type1-remove-locked-page-accounting-workqueue.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From 0cfef2b7410b64d7a430947e0b533314c4f97153 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:10:15 -0600
Subject: vfio/type1: Remove locked page accounting workqueue
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
commit 0cfef2b7410b64d7a430947e0b533314c4f97153 upstream.
If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
entire vfio_dma.
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
@@ -130,57 +130,36 @@ static void vfio_unlink_dma(struct vfio_
rb_erase(&old->node, &iommu->dma_list);
}
-struct vwork {
- struct mm_struct *mm;
- long npage;
- struct work_struct work;
-};
-
-/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
-static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
+static int vfio_lock_acct(long npage, bool *lock_cap)
{
- struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
- struct mm_struct *mm;
+ int ret;
- mm = vwork->mm;
- down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
- mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
- up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
- mmput(mm);
- kfree(vwork);
-}
+ if (!npage)
+ return 0;
-static void vfio_lock_acct(long npage)
-{
- struct vwork *vwork;
- struct mm_struct *mm;
+ if (!current->mm)
+ return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
+
+ ret = down_write_killable(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
+ if (!ret) {
+ if (npage > 0) {
+ if (lock_cap ? !*lock_cap : !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
+ unsigned long limit;
+
+ limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ if (current->mm->locked_vm + npage > limit)
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ }
- if (!current->mm || !npage)
- return; /* process exited or nothing to do */
+ if (!ret)
+ current->mm->locked_vm += npage;
- if (down_write_trylock(¤t->mm->mmap_sem)) {
- current->mm->locked_vm += npage;
up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
- return;
}
- /*
- * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
- * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
- * wouldn't need this silliness
- */
- vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!vwork)
- return;
- mm = get_task_mm(current);
- if (!mm) {
- kfree(vwork);
- return;
- }
- INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
- vwork->mm = mm;
- vwork->npage = npage;
- schedule_work(&vwork->work);
+ return ret;
}
/*
@@ -262,9 +241,9 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(unsigned long v
static long vfio_pin_pages(unsigned long vaddr, long npage,
int prot, unsigned long *pfn_base)
{
- unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
- long ret, i;
+ long ret, i = 1;
bool rsvd;
if (!current->mm)
@@ -283,16 +262,11 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages(unsigned long
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (unlikely(disable_hugepages)) {
- if (!rsvd)
- vfio_lock_acct(1);
- return 1;
- }
+ if (unlikely(disable_hugepages))
+ goto out;
/* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
- for (i = 1, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE; i < npage; i++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE) {
- unsigned long pfn = 0;
-
+ for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE; i < npage; i++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE) {
ret = vaddr_get_pfn(vaddr, prot, &pfn);
if (ret)
break;
@@ -308,12 +282,24 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages(unsigned long
put_pfn(pfn, prot);
pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
__func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
- break;
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto unpin_out;
}
}
+out:
if (!rsvd)
- vfio_lock_acct(i);
+ ret = vfio_lock_acct(i, &lock_cap);
+
+unpin_out:
+ if (ret) {
+ if (!rsvd) {
+ for (pfn = *pfn_base ; i ; pfn++, i--)
+ put_pfn(pfn, prot);
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+ }
return i;
}
@@ -328,7 +314,7 @@ static long vfio_unpin_pages(unsigned lo
unlocked += put_pfn(pfn++, prot);
if (do_accounting)
- vfio_lock_acct(-unlocked);
+ vfio_lock_acct(-unlocked, NULL);
return unlocked;
}
@@ -390,7 +376,7 @@ static void vfio_unmap_unpin(struct vfio
cond_resched();
}
- vfio_lock_acct(-unlocked);
+ vfio_lock_acct(-unlocked, NULL);
}
static void vfio_remove_dma(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma)
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from alex.williamson@redhat.com are
queue-4.9/vfio-type1-remove-locked-page-accounting-workqueue.patch
reply other threads:[~2017-05-17 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=14950101764366@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).