linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: defer vmalloc from atomic context

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:   Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:43:16 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: defer vmalloc from atomic context

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/22/2016 06:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> We want to be able to use a sleeping lock for freeing vmap to keep
>> latency down.  For this we need to use the deferred vfree mechanisms
>> no only from interrupt, but from any atomic context.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>> ---
>>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> index a4e2cec..bcc1a64 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> @@ -1509,7 +1509,7 @@ void vfree(const void *addr)
>>
>>       if (!addr)
>>               return;
>> -     if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
>> +     if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
>
> in_atomic() cannot always detect atomic context, thus it shouldn't be used here.
> You can add something like vfree_in_atomic() and use it in atomic call sites.
>

So because in_atomic doesn't work for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, can we
always defer the work in these cases?

So for non-preemptible kernels, we always defer:

if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || in_atomic()) {
  // defer
}

Is this fine? Or any other ideas?

Thanks,
Joel