On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 7:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <j...@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 07:20:34AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 8:25 PM Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 08:02:35PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > > > It is possible that a buggy caller of unpin_user_pages()
> > > > (specially in error handling path) may end up calling it with
> > > > npages < 0 which is unnecessary.
> > > > @@ -328,6 +328,9 @@ void unpin_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned
> > > > long npages)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned long index;
> > > >
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(npages < 0))
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > But npages is unsigned long. So it can't be less than zero.
> >
> > Sorry, I missed it.
> >
> > Then, it means if npages is assigned with -ERRNO by caller,
> > unpin_user_pages()
> > may end up calling a big loop, which is unnecessary.
>
> How will a caller allocate memory of the right size and still manage
> to call with the wrong npages? Do you have an example of a broken caller?
These are two broken callers which might end up calling unpin_user_pages()
with -ERRNO.
drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c#L952
drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c#L1399
They both are in error handling paths, so might not have any serious impact.
But theoretically possible.
