Re: [RFC PATCH v2] xen/privcmd: Convert get_user_pages*() to pin_user_pages*()

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 6/24/20 12:41 PM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:07 PM Boris Ostrovsky
> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 6/23/20 9:36 PM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:11 PM Boris Ostrovsky
>>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/20 7:58 AM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
>>>>> In 2019, we introduced pin_user_pages*() and now we are converting
>>>>> get_user_pages*() to the new API as appropriate. [1] & [2] could
>>>>> be referred for more information. This is case 5 as per document [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed, pages need to be marked as dirty before unpinned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Previously, if lock_pages() end up partially mapping pages, it used
>>>>> to return -ERRNO due to which unlock_pages() have to go through
>>>>> each pages[i] till *nr_pages* to validate them. This can be avoided
>>>>> by passing correct number partially mapped pages & -ERRNO separately
>>>>> while returning from lock_pages() due to error.
>>>>> With this fix unlock_pages() doesn't need to validate pages[i] till
>>>>> *nr_pages* for error scenario.
>>>> This should be split into two patches please. The first one will fix the
>>>> return value bug (and will need to go to stable branches) and the second
>>>> will use new routine to pin pages.
>>> Initially I split the patches into 2 commits. But at last moment I
>>> figure out that,
>>> this bug fix ( better to call coding error, doesn't looks like lead to
>>> any runtime bug) is tightly coupled to 2nd commit for
>>> pin_user_pages*() conversion,
>>> which means we don't need the bug fix patch if we are not converting the API to
>>> pin_user_pages*()/ unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(). That's the reason to
>>> clubbed these two
>>> commits into a single one.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand why the two issues are connected. Failure of
>> either get_user_pages_fast() or pin_user_pages() will result in the same
>> kind of overall ioctl failure, won't it?
>>
> Sorry, I think, I need to go through the bug again for my clarity.
>
> My understanding is ->
>
> First, In case of success lock_pages() returns 0, so what privcmd_ioctl_dm_op()
> will return to user is depend on the return value of HYPERVISOR_dm_op()
> and at last all the pages are unpinned. At present I am not clear about the
> return value of HYPERVISOR_dm_op(). But this path of code looks to be correct.
>
> second, incase of failure from lock_pages() will return either -ENOSPC / -ERRNO
> receive from {get|pin|_user_pages_fast() inside for loop. (at that
> point there might
> be some partially mapped pages as it is mapping inside the loop). Upon
> receiving
> -ERRNO privcmd_ioctl_dm_op() will pass the same -ERRNO to user (not the partial
> mapped page count). This looks to be correct behaviour from user space.


Sigh...  I am sorry, you are absolutely correct. It does return -errno
on get_user_pages_fast() failure. I don't know what (or whether) I was
thinking. (And so Paul, ignore my question)


-boris


>
> The problem I was trying to address is, in the second scenario when
> lock_pages() returns
> -ERRNO and there are already existing mapped pages. In this scenario,
> when unlcok_pages()
> is called it will iterate till *nr_pages* to validate and unmap the
> pages. But it is supposed to
> unmap only the mapped pages which I am trying to address as part of bug fix.
>
> Let me know if I am able to be in sync with what you are expecting ?
>
>
>> One concern though is that we are changing how user will see this error.
> My understanding from above is user will always see right -ERRNO and
> will not be impacted.
>
> Another scenario I was thinking, if {get|pin|_user_pages_fast() return
> number of pages pinned
> which may be fewer than the number requested. Then lock_pages()
> returns 0 to caller
> and caller/user space will continue with the assumption that all pages
> are pinned correctly.
> Is this an expected behaviour as per current code ?
>
>
>> Currently Xen devicemodel (which AFAIK is the only caller) ignores it,
>> which is I think is wrong. So another option would be to fix this in Xen
>> and continue returning positive number here. I guess it's back to Paul
>> again.
>>
>>
>> -boris
>>
>>