linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] hugetlb reservations -- MAP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4862B72D.7060103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:22:53 -0500
From:	Jon Tollefson <kniht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>,
	Adam Litke <agl@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hugetlb reservations -- MAP_PRIVATE fixes for split vmas
 V2

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> As reported by Adam Litke and Jon Tollefson one of the libhugetlbfs
> regression tests triggers a negative overall reservation count.  When
> this occurs where there is no dynamic pool enabled tests will fail.
>
> Following this email are two patches to address this issue:
>
> hugetlb reservations: move region tracking earlier -- simply moves the
>   region tracking code earlier so we do not have to supply prototypes, and
>
> hugetlb reservations: fix hugetlb MAP_PRIVATE reservations across vma
>   splits -- which moves us to tracking the consumed reservation so that
>   we can correctly calculate the remaining reservations at vma close time.
>
> This stack is against the top of v2.6.25-rc6-mm3, should this solution
> prove acceptable it would need slipping underneath Nick's multiple hugepage
> size patches and those updated.  I have a modified stack prepared for that.
>
> This version incorporates Mel's feedback (both cosmetic, and an allocation
> under spinlock issue) and has an improved layout.
>
> Changes in V2:
>  - commentry updates
>  - pull allocations out from under hugetlb_lock
>  - refactor to match shared code layout
>  - reinstate BUG_ON's
>
> Jon could you have a test on this and see if it works out for you.
>
> -apw
>   
Version two works for me too.  I am not seeing the reserve value become
negative when running the libhuge tests.

Jon

--
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/