Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: protect unpin_user_pages() against npages==-ERRNO
From: Dan Carpenter
Date: Mon Sep 21 2020 - 05:34:32 EST
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 09:13:17PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/19/20 8:03 PM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:11 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:57:06PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > As suggested by Dan Carpenter, fortify unpin_user_pages() just a bit,
> > > > against a typical caller mistake: check if the npages arg is really a
> > > > -ERRNO value, which would blow up the unpinning loop: WARN and return.
> > > >
> > > > If this new WARN_ON() fires, then the system *might* be leaking pages
> > > > (by leaving them pinned), but probably not. More likely, gup/pup
> > > > returned a hard -ERRNO error to the caller, who erroneously passed it
> > > > here.
> > Do we need a similar check inside unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(),
> > when make_dirty set to false ?
> Maybe not. This call is rarely if ever used for error handling, but
> rather, for finishing up a successful use of the pages.
> There is a balance between protecting against buggy callers and just
> fixing any buggy callers. There is also a limit to how much code one can
> write in hopes of avoiding bugs in...code that one writes. :) Which is
> why static analysis, unit and regression tests, code reviews are
> important too.
> Here, I submit that that we're about to cross the line and go too far.
> But if you have any examples of buggy callers for
> unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(), that might shift the line.
I checked for buggy uses of unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock() using Smatch
and didn't find anything. (Which doesn't mean that there aren't any).