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:	Wed, 18 May 2016 10:17:09 +0000
From:	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
CC:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Naoya Horiguchi" <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of
 page->flags for hwpoison page

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:52:51AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > >>There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> > >>taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> > >>use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> > >should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> > >out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> > >race. The current race is
> > >
> > >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > >2. poison clears in parallel
> > >3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
> > >
> > >The code changes it to
> > >
> > >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > >2. poison clears in parallel
> > >3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
> > 
> > I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set
> > bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison".
> > 
> 
> I think the benefit is marginal. The race means that the patch will trigger
> a warning that might have been missed before due to a parallel unpoison
> but that's not necessary a Good Thing. It's inherently race-prone.
> 
> Naoya, if you fix the check to (bad_flags & __PG_POISON) then I'll add my
> ack but I'm not convinced it's a real problem.

This v1 had the wrong operator issue as you mentioned. I posted v2 a while ago,
which has no such issue and is a better fix hopefully.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ