linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: fix sense

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]

Message-Id: <1207601233.29991.32.camel@lappy>
Date:	Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:47:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: fix sense_slab/bio swapping livelock

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 21:31 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 20:40 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > 
> > > My supposition is that once a page has been allocated from __GFP_HIGH
> > > reserves to a scsi sense_slab, swap_writepages are liable to gobble up
> > > the rest of the page with bio allocations which they wouldn't have had
> > > access to traditionally (i.e. under SLAB).
> > > 
> > > So an unexpected behaviour emerges from SLUB's slab merging.
> > 
> > Somewhere along the line of my swap over network patches I made
> > 'robustified' SLAB to ensure these sorts of things could not happen - it
> > came at a cost though.
> > 
> > It would basically fail[*] allocations that had a higher low watermark
> > than what was used to allocate the current slab.
> > 
> > [*] - well, it would attempt to allocate a new slab to raise the current
> > watermark, but failing that it would fail the allocation.
> 
> Thanks, Peter: that sounds just right to me; but a larger change than
> we'd want to jump into for this one particular issue - it might have
> its own unexpected consequences.

Right, but I doubt we'd ever get something like that merged though -
esp. as it will basically destroy the SLUB fast-path.

SLAB allocation fairness:
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/16/61

I abandoned this approach because it was too expensive; it was reduced
to the ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS state transition. Which is much more unlikely
to happen and it's generally accepted we're in a slow path once we
really dive so low into the reserves.

The latest posting:
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/20/214


--
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/