linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slab_pad

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:	Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:17:57 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netfilter Developers <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slab_pad_check()

On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 05:44:54PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > It seems very smart, but needs review of all callers to make sure no slabs
> > are waiting for final freeing in call_rcu queue on some cpu.
> 
> Yes. Again this is the first time we encounter a situation where a
> DESTROY_BY_RCU slab has to be destroyed. So the review is quite short.
> 
> > I suspect most of them will then have to use rcu_barrier() before calling
> > kmem_cache_destroy(), so why not factorizing code in one place ?
> 
> There are different forms of RCU which require different forms of
> barriers. Its best to leave that up to the user. Again the user must make
> sure that no objects are in use before a slab is destroyed. For
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU this means that there are no potential outstanding
> reads on the structure. You may need an rcu_barrier() to accomplish that.
> 
> Slight variations in the use of RCU could require different method. Better
> reduce the entanglement of slabs to RCU to a mininum possible.

If it were the user of the slab who was invoking some variant of
call_rcu(), then I would agree with you.

However, call_rcu() is instead being invoked by the slab itself in the
case of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, so that there is no variation in usage.
Requiring that the user call rcu_barrier() is asking for subtle bugs.
Therefore, the best approach is to have kmem_cache_destroy() handle
the RCU cleanup, given that this cleanup is for actions taken by
kmem_cache_free(), not by the user.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/