linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mmotm] mm: alloc_large_system

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905011303490.11574@blonde.anvils>
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2009 13:05:50 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] mm: alloc_large_system_hash check order

On Fri, 1 May 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hugh Dickins a écrit :
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:09:48PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >>> On an x86_64 with 4GB ram, tcp_init()'s call to alloc_large_system_hash(),
> >>> to allocate tcp_hashinfo.ehash, is now triggering an mmotm WARN_ON_ONCE on
> >>> order >= MAX_ORDER - it's hoping for order 11.  alloc_large_system_hash()
> >>> had better make its own check on the order.
> 
> Well, I dont know why, since alloc_large_system_hash() already take
> care of retries, halving size between each tries.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I just meant that if we keep that
WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER) in __alloc_pages_slowpath(),
then we need alloc_large_system_hash() to avoid the call to
__get_free_pages() in the order >= MAX_ORDER case,
precisely because we're happy with the way it halves and
falls back, so don't want a noisy warning; and now that we know
that it could give that warning, it would be a shame for the
_ONCE to suppress more interesting warnings later.

I certainly did not mean for alloc_large_system_hash() to fail
in the order >= MAX_ORDER case, nor did the patch do so.

Hugh