Re: [PATCH 5/7] io_uring: rsrc: use FOLL_SAME_FILE on pin_user_pages()

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] io_uring: rsrc: use FOLL_SAME_FILE on pin_user_pages()
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:15:10 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZD1UbgeoeNFEvv9/@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34959b70-6270-46cf-94c5-d6da12b0c62d@lucifer.local>

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:00:16PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:26:09AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >
> > > > I'd rather see something like FOLL_ALLOW_BROKEN_FILE_MAPPINGS than
> > > > io_uring open coding this kind of stuff.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How would the semantics of this work? What is broken? It is a little
> > > frustrating that we have FOLL_ANON but hugetlb as an outlying case, adding
> > > FOLL_ANON_OR_HUGETLB was another consideration...
> >
> > It says "historically this user has accepted file backed pages and we
> > we think there may actually be users doing that, so don't break the
> > uABI"
> 
> Having written a bunch here I suddenly realised that you probably mean for
> this flag to NOT be applied to the io_uring code and thus have it enforce
> the 'anonymous or hugetlb' check by default?

Yes

> So you mean to disallow file-backed page pinning as a whole unless this
> flag is specified? 

Yes

> For FOLL_GET I can see that access to the underlying
> data is dangerous as the memory may get reclaimed or migrated, but surely
> DMA-pinned memory (as is the case here) is safe?

No, it is all broken, read-only access is safe.

We are trying to get a point where pin access will interact properly
with the filesystem, but it isn't done yet.

> Or is this a product more so of some kernel process accessing file-backed
> pages for a file system which expects write-notify semantics and doesn't
> get them in this case, which could indeed be horribly broken.

Yes, broadly

> I am definitely in favour of cutting things down if possible, and very much
> prefer the use of uaccess if we are able to do so rather than GUP.
> 
> I do feel that GUP should be focused purely on pinning memory rather than
> manipulating it (whether read or write) so I agree with this sentiment.

Yes, someone needs to be brave enough to go and try to adjust these
old places :)

I see in the git history this was added to solve CVE-2018-1120 - eg
FUSE can hold off fault-in indefinitely. So the flag is really badly
misnamed - it is "FOLL_DONT_BLOCK_ON_USERSPACE" and anon memory is a
simple, but overly narrow, way to get that property.

If it is changed to use kthread_use_mm() it needs a VMA based check
for the same idea.

Jason