Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] uaccess: better might_sleep/might_fault behavior

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This improves the might_fault annotations used
> > by uaccess routines:
> > 
> > 1. The only reason uaccess routines might sleep
> >    is if they fault. Make this explicit for
> >    all architectures.
> > 2. Accesses (e.g through socket ops) to kernel memory
> >    with KERNEL_DS like net/sunrpc does will never sleep.
> >    Remove an unconditinal might_sleep in the inline
> >    might_fault in kernel.h
> >    (used when PROVE_LOCKING is not set).
> > 3. Accesses with pagefault_disable return EFAULT
> >    but won't cause caller to sleep.
> >    Check for that and avoid might_sleep when
> >    PROVE_LOCKING is set.
> > 
> > I'd like these changes to go in for the benefit of
> > the vhost driver where we want to call socket ops
> > under a spinlock, and fall back on slower thread handler
> > on error.
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I have recently stumbled over a related topic, which is the highly
> inconsistent placement of might_fault() or might_sleep() in certain
> classes of uaccess functions. Your patches seem completely reasonable,
> but it would be good to also fix the other problem, at least on
> the architectures we most care about.
> 
> Given the most commonly used functions and a couple of architectures
> I'm familiar with, these are the ones that currently call might_fault()
> 
> 			x86-32	x86-64	arm	arm64	powerpc	s390	generic
> copy_to_user		-	x	-	-	-	x	x
> copy_from_user		-	x	-	-	-	x	x
> put_user		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
> get_user		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
> __copy_to_user		x	x	-	-	x	-	-
> __copy_from_user	x	x	-	-	x	-	-
> __put_user		-	-	x	-	x	-	-
> __get_user		-	-	x	-	x	-	-
> 
> WTF?

Yea.

> Calling might_fault() for every __get_user/__put_user is rather expensive
> because it turns what should be a single instruction (plus fixup) into an
> external function call.

You mean _cond_resched with CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY? Or do you
mean when we build with PROVE_LOCKING?

> My feeling is that we should do might_fault() only in access_ok() to get
> the right balance.
> 
> 	Arnd

Well access_ok is currently non-blocking I think - we'd have to audit
all callers. There are some 200 of these in drivers and some
1000 total so ... a bit risky.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/