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:	Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:47:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: SPAM: Re: [patch 6/6] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks

On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 16:19 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:51:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Why use raw {inc,dec}_preempt_count() and not
> > > > preempt_{disable,enable}()? Is the compiler barrier not needed here? And
> > > > do we really want to avoid the preempt_check_resched()?
> > > 
> > > Counter to intuition, we actually don't mind being preempted here,
> > > but we do mind entering the (core) pagefault handler. Incrementing
> > > the preempt count causes the arch specific handler to bail out early
> > > before it takes any locks.
> > > 
> > > Clear as mud? Wrapping it in a better name might be an improvement?
> > > Or wrapping it into the copy*user_atomic functions themselves (which
> > > is AFAIK the only place we use it).
> > 
> > Right, but since you do inc the preempt_count you do disable preemption,
> > might as well check TIF_NEED_RESCHED when enabling preemption again.
> 
> Yeah, you are right about that. Unfortunately there isn't a good
> way to do this at the moment... well we could disable preempt
> around the section, but that would be silly for a PREEMPT kernel.
> 
> And we should really decouple it from preempt entirely, in case we
> ever want to check for it some other way in the pagefault handler.

How about we make sure all kmap_atomic implementations behave properly 
and make in_atomic true.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 include/asm-frv/highmem.h  |    5 +++--
 include/asm-mips/highmem.h |   10 ++++++++--
 include/linux/highmem.h    |    9 ++++++---
 mm/filemap.c               |    4 +---
 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-frv/highmem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-frv/highmem.h	2006-07-17 22:30:51.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/include/asm-frv/highmem.h	2006-10-15 17:32:02.000000000 +0200
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static inline void *kmap_atomic(struct p
 {
 	unsigned long paddr;
 
-	preempt_disable();
+	inc_preempt_count();
 	paddr = page_to_phys(page);
 
 	switch (type) {
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ static inline void kunmap_atomic(void *k
 	default:
 		BUG();
 	}
-	preempt_enable();
+	dec_preempt_count();
+	preempt_check_resched();
 }
 
 #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-mips/highmem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-mips/highmem.h	2006-07-17 22:30:56.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/include/asm-mips/highmem.h	2006-10-15 17:36:49.000000000 +0200
@@ -70,11 +70,17 @@ static inline void *kmap(struct page *pa
 
 static inline void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page, enum km_type type)
 {
+	inc_preempt_count();
 	return page_address(page);
 }
 
-static inline void kunmap_atomic(void *kvaddr, enum km_type type) { }
-#define kmap_atomic_pfn(pfn, idx)	page_address(pfn_to_page(pfn))
+static inline void kunmap_atomic(void *kvaddr, enum km_type type)
+{
+	dec_preempt_count();
+	preempt_check_resched();
+}
+
+#define kmap_atomic_pfn(pfn, idx)	kmap_atomic(pfn_to_page(pfn), (idx))
 
 #define kmap_atomic_to_page(ptr) virt_to_page(ptr)
 
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/highmem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/highmem.h	2006-10-07 18:47:32.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/highmem.h	2006-10-15 17:32:44.000000000 +0200
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/fs.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
 
 #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
 
@@ -41,9 +42,11 @@ static inline void *kmap(struct page *pa
 
 #define kunmap(page) do { (void) (page); } while (0)
 
-#define kmap_atomic(page, idx)		page_address(page)
-#define kunmap_atomic(addr, idx)	do { } while (0)
-#define kmap_atomic_pfn(pfn, idx)	page_address(pfn_to_page(pfn))
+#define kmap_atomic(page, idx) \
+	({ inc_preempt_count(); page_address(page); })
+#define kunmap_atomic(addr, idx) \
+	do { dec_preempt_count(); preempt_check_resched(); } while (0)
+#define kmap_atomic_pfn(pfn, idx)	kmap_atomic(pfn_to_page(pfn), (idx))
 #define kmap_atomic_to_page(ptr)	virt_to_page(ptr)
 #endif
 
Index: linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/filemap.c	2006-10-15 17:24:41.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c	2006-10-15 17:40:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -2140,9 +2140,8 @@ retry_noprogress:
 		 * the page lock, so we might recursively deadlock on the same
 		 * lock, or get an ABBA deadlock against a different lock, or
 		 * against the mmap_sem (which nests outside the page lock).
-		 * So increment preempt count, and use _atomic usercopies.
+		 * So use _atomic usercopies.
 		 */
-		inc_preempt_count();
 		if (likely(nr_segs == 1))
 			copied = filemap_copy_from_user_atomic(page, offset,
 							buf, bytes);
@@ -2150,7 +2149,6 @@ retry_noprogress:
 			copied = filemap_copy_from_user_iovec_atomic(page,
 						offset, cur_iov, iov_offset,
 						bytes);
-		dec_preempt_count();
 
 		if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
 			/*


-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ