linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:06:06 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>,
	riel@...hat.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:39:16PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:12:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 5823698..1659574 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -3322,7 +3322,7 @@ int handle_mm_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  	 * run pte_offset_map on the pmd, if an huge pmd could
> >  	 * materialize from under us from a different thread.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))
> > +	if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) && __pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address))

I started hacking on this and I noticed it'd be better to extend the
unlikely through the end. At first review I didn't notice the
parenthesis closure stops after pte_none and __pte_alloc is now
uncovered. I'd prefer this:

    if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd) && __pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))

I mean the real unlikely thing is that we return VM_FAULT_OOM, if we
end up calling __pte_alloc or not, depends on the app. Generally it
sounds more frequent that the pte is not none, so it's not wrong, but
it's even less likely that __pte_alloc fails so that can be taken into
account too, and __pte_alloc runs still quite frequently. So either
above or:

    if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) && unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))

I generally prefer unlikely only when it's 100% sure thing it's less
likely (like the VM_FAULT_OOM), so the first version I guess it's
enough (I'm afraid unlikely for pte_none too, may make gcc generate a
far away jump possibly going out of l1 icache for a case that is only
512 times less likely at best). My point is that it's certainly hugely
more unlikely that __pte_alloc fails than the pte is none.

This is a real nitpick though ;).
--
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/