linux-kernel - Re: SLOB lockup (was: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep: annotate reclaim context (__GFP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:00:28 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: SLOB lockup (was: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep: annotate reclaim context (__GFP_NOFS), fix SLOB)

On Monday 16 March 2009 01:56:00 Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 20:06 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 March 2009 17:48:18 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > > > LKML-Reference: <20090128135457.350751756@...llo.nl>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > >
> > > and with this fixed, and with SLOB now being tested in -tip, the
> > > new lockdep assert attached below (followed by a real lockup)
> > > pops up.
> > >
> > > Seems like a genuine SLOB bug, probably present upstream as
> > > well.
> >
> > Hmmf. debugobjects calls back into the slab allocator from the page
> > allocator. The following patch would improve SLOB, but I think it
> > would be a good idea to avoid a dependency in that direction. Can
> > debugobjects defer this freeing?
>
> Yeah. I don't think any of the allocators are designed with recursion in
> mind. That the others aren't (visibly) failing here is blind luck.
>
> Nick, not really sure what your patch is accomplishing. It narrows the
> lock window, but it doesn't eliminate it. But I think we can take the
> page allocator case out from under the lock entirely, no?

Oh, it was trying to accomplish exactly this, but wasn't tested (just
for illustration).

I think Thomas's deferred freeing work should be a good way to fix this
problem, but of course reducing locking in SLOB doesn't hurt in the
slightest either ;)


> diff -r 8e0f1cee0a71 mm/slob.c
> --- a/mm/slob.c	Sat Jan 24 15:41:13 2009 -0600
> +++ b/mm/slob.c	Sun Mar 15 09:50:42 2009 -0500
> @@ -387,8 +387,6 @@
>  	sp = (struct slob_page *)virt_to_page(block);
>  	units = SLOB_UNITS(size);
>
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&slob_lock, flags);
> -
>  	if (sp->units + units == SLOB_UNITS(PAGE_SIZE)) {
>  		/* Go directly to page allocator. Do not pass slob allocator */
>  		if (slob_page_free(sp))

This doesn't work because you have to hold the lock over the test
otherwise another thread can concurrently meddle with sp->units.

For that matter my previous patch was buggy, aside from the obvious
that Ingo pointed out, because I unlocked before removing the page
from the freelist too.

This should be pretty close to correct ;)
--

Don't hold SLOB lock when freeing the page. Reduces lock hold width.

Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
---
 mm/slob.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6/mm/slob.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slob.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/slob.c
@@ -393,10 +393,11 @@ static void slob_free(void *block, int s
 		/* Go directly to page allocator. Do not pass slob allocator */
 		if (slob_page_free(sp))
 			clear_slob_page_free(sp);
+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&slob_lock, flags);
 		clear_slob_page(sp);
 		free_slob_page(sp);
 		free_page((unsigned long)b);
-		goto out;
+		return;
 	}
 
 	if (!slob_page_free(sp)) {

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