linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mempool: launder reused items from kzalloc pool

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:	Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:20:11 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sage@...dream.net, neilb@...e.de,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Matthew Dobson <colpatch@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempool: launder reused items from kzalloc pool

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:46:07 -0700
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net> wrote:

> The kzalloc pool created by mempool_create_kzalloc_pool() only zeros items
> the first time they are allocated; it doesn't re-zero freed items that are
> returned to the pool.  This only comes up when the pool is used in the
> first place (when memory is very low).
> 
> Fix this by adding a mempool_launder_t method that is called before
> returning items to the pool, and set it in mempool_create_kzalloc_pool.
> This preserves the use of __GFP_ZERO in the common case where the pool
> isn't touched at all.
> 
> There are currently two in-tree users of mempool_create_kzalloc_pool:
> 	drivers/md/multipath.c
> 	drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
> The first appears to be affected by this bug.  The second manually zeros
> each allocation, and can stop doing so after this is fixed.
> 
> Alternatively, mempool_create_kzalloc_pool() could be removed entirely and
> the callers could zero allocations themselves.

I must say that it does all seem a bit too fancy.  Removal of that code
and changing the callers to zero the memory seems a nice and simple fix
to me.

> diff --git a/include/linux/mempool.h b/include/linux/mempool.h
> index 9be484d..889c7e1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mempool.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mempool.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ struct kmem_cache;
>  
>  typedef void * (mempool_alloc_t)(gfp_t gfp_mask, void *pool_data);
>  typedef void (mempool_free_t)(void *element, void *pool_data);
> +typedef void (mempool_launder_t)(void *element, void *pool_data);
>  
>  typedef struct mempool_s {
>  	spinlock_t lock;
> @@ -20,6 +21,7 @@ typedef struct mempool_s {
>  	void *pool_data;
>  	mempool_alloc_t *alloc;
>  	mempool_free_t *free;
> +	mempool_launder_t *launder;
>  	wait_queue_head_t wait;
>  } mempool_t;

Yes, but we've added larger data structures and expensive indirect calls.

Also, the code now zeroes the memory at deallocation time.  Slab used
to do this but we ended up deciding it was a bad thing from a cache
hotness POV and that it is better to zero the memory immediately before
the caller starts to use it.

So my vote would be to zap all that stuff.  We could perhaps do

static void *mempool_zalloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask, size_t size)
{
	void *ret = mempool_alloc(pool, gfp_mask);

	if (ret)
		memset(ret, 0, size);
	return ret;
}

but it's unobvious that even this is worth doing.

--
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/