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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170109134210.GI7495@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:42:10 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, djwong@...nel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, logfs@...fs.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API On Mon 09-01-17 14:04:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote: [...] > > +static inline unsigned int memalloc_nofs_save(void) > > +{ > > + unsigned int flags = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS; > > + current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS; > > So this is not new, as same goes for memalloc_noio_save, but I've > noticed that e.g. exit_signal() does tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING; > So is it possible that there's a r-m-w hazard here? exit_signals operates on current and all task_struct::flags should be used only on the current. [...] > > @@ -3029,7 +3029,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > int nid; > > struct scan_control sc = { > > .nr_to_reclaim = max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), > > - .gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | > > + .gfp_mask = (current_gfp_context(gfp_mask) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | > > So this function didn't do memalloc_noio_flags() before? Is it a bug > that should be fixed separately or at least mentioned? Because that > looks like a functional change... We didn't need it. Kmem charges are opt-in and current all of them support GFP_IO. The LRU pages are not charged in NOIO context either. We need it now because there will be callers to charge GFP_KERNEL while being inside the NOFS scope. Now that you have opened this I have noticed that the code is wrong here because GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK would overwrite the removed GFP_FS. I guess it would be better and less error prone to move the current_gfp_context part into the direct reclaim entry - do_try_to_free_pages - and put the comment like this --- diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 4ea6b610f20e..df7975185f11 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2756,6 +2756,13 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int initial_priority = sc->priority; unsigned long total_scanned = 0; unsigned long writeback_threshold; + + /* + * Make sure that the gfp context properly handles scope gfp mask. + * This might weaken the reclaim context (e.g. make it GFP_NOFS or + * GFP_NOIO). + */ + sc->gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(sc->gfp_mask); retry: delayacct_freepages_start(); @@ -2949,7 +2956,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order, unsigned long nr_reclaimed; struct scan_control sc = { .nr_to_reclaim = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, - .gfp_mask = (gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask)), + .gfp_mask = gfp_mask, .reclaim_idx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask), .order = order, .nodemask = nodemask, @@ -3029,8 +3036,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid; struct scan_control sc = { .nr_to_reclaim = max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), - .gfp_mask = (current_gfp_context(gfp_mask) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | - (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK), + .gfp_mask = GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK, .reclaim_idx = MAX_NR_ZONES - 1, .target_mem_cgroup = memcg, .priority = DEF_PRIORITY, @@ -3723,7 +3729,7 @@ static int __node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned in int classzone_idx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask); struct scan_control sc = { .nr_to_reclaim = max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), - .gfp_mask = (gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask)), + .gfp_mask = gfp_mask, .order = order, .priority = NODE_RECLAIM_PRIORITY, .may_writepage = !!(node_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE), -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists