linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] V4: rwsem changes + down_read

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:	Thu, 27 May 2010 13:18:00 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] V4: rwsem changes + down_read_critical() proposal

On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 03:59 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:27:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 02:12 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > Yes, we do have patches trying to release the mmap_sem when a page
> > > fault for a file backed VMA blocks on accessing the corresponding
> > > file. We have not given up on these, and we intend to try submitting
> > > them again. However, these patches do *not* address the case of a page
> > > fault blocking while trying to get a free page (i.e. when you get
> > > under high memory pressure).
> > 
> > But I guess they could, right? Simply make the allocation under mmap_sem
> > be __GFP_HARDWALL|__GFP_HIGHMEM|__GFP_MOVABLE__GFP_NOWARN or
> > (GFP_HUGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~(__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS))|__GFP_NOWARN
> > 
> > and drop the mmap_sem when that fails.
> 
> It's not clear to me if this can lead to a clean uncontroversial solution.
> Doing this for file backed VMAs does not sound any harder in principle,
> but we could not get it past linus's NACK last time. I think it's worth
> exploring again, but I don't expect it to be so easy :)

Right, I was planning to have a look again, but my todo list is getting
out of hand again.

> > > > I really don't like people tinkering with the lock implementations like
> > > > this. Nor do I like the naming, stats are in no way _critical_.
> > > 
> > > Critical here refers to the fact that you're not allowed to block
> > > while holding the unfairly acquired rwsem.
> > 
> > We usually call that atomic, your 0/n patch didn't explain any of that.
> 
> Would replacing the 'critical' name with 'atomic' address your concern
> though, or would you remain fundamentally opposed to anything that involves
> an unfair acquire path ?

Yeah, I don't think its a good idea to add unfairness to the lock, such
things tend to backfire and generate starvation cases. For instance, a
tight loop around your /proc/$pid/maps mod will starve $pid from doing
anything requiring mmap_sem for writing.

> What about patches 1-7 which don't deal with the critical/atomic API;
> can we agree to get these in before we we figure out what to do with
> the the last 4 ?

patch 6 looks like it will break fairness, either that or the changelog
got me totally confused (already had to read it twice).
--
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/