linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] zram: remove init_lock in zram_make

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, 2 Feb 2015 10:48:00 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request

Hello Minchan,

On (02/02/15 10:30), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >  static inline int init_done(struct zram *zram)
> > >  {
> > > -	return zram->meta != NULL;
> > > +	return zram->disksize != 0;
> > 
> > we don't set ->disksize to 0 when create device. and I think
> > it's better to use refcount here, but set it to 0 during device creation.
> > (see the patch below)
> 
> There was a reason I didn't use refcount there.
> I should have written down it.
> 
> We need something to prevent further I/O handling on other CPUs.
> Otherwise, it's livelock. For example, new 'A' I/O rw path on CPU 1
> can see non-zero refcount if another CPU is going on rw.
> Then, another new 'B' I/O rw path on CPU 2 can see non-zero refcount
> if A I/O is going on. Then, another new 'C' I/O rw path on CPU 3 can
> see non-zero refcount if B I/O is going on. Finally, 'A' IO is done
> on CPU 1 and next I/O 'D' on CPU 1 can see non-zero refcount because
> 'C' on CPU 3 is going on. Infinite loop.

sure, I did think about this. and I actually didn't find any reason not
to use ->refcount there. if user wants to reset the device, he first
should umount it to make bdev->bd_holders check happy. and that's where
IOs will be failed. so it makes sense to switch to ->refcount there, IMHO.


> > here and later:
> > we can't take zram_meta_get() first and then check for init_done(zram),
> > because ->meta can be NULL, so it fill be ->NULL->refcount.
> 
> True.
> Actually, it was totally RFC I forgot adding the tag in the night but I can't
> escape from my shame with the escuse. Thanks!

no problem at all. you were throwing solutions all week long.

> 
> > 
> > let's keep ->completion and ->refcount in zram and rename zram_meta_[get|put]
> > to zram_[get|put].
> 
> Good idea but still want to name it as zram_meta_get/put because zram_get naming
> might confuse struct zram's refcount rather than zram_meta. :)

no objections. but I assume we agreed to keep ->io_done completion
and ->refcount in zram.

	-ss
--
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/