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]

Message-ID: <20090904204251.GA15413@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:42:51 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:17:34AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Problem is not _objects_ Christoph, but _slabs_, and your patch is not working.
> > 
> > Its true that when User calls kmem_cache_destroy(), all _objects_ were previously freed.
> > This is mandatory, with or withou SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU thing
> > 
> > Problem is that slub has some internal state, including some to-be-freed _slabs_,
> > that User have no control at all on it.
> > 
> > User cannot "know" slabs are freed, inuse, or whatever state in cache or call_rcu queues.
> > 
> > Face it, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is internal affair (to slub/slab/... allocators)
> > 
> > We absolutely need a rcu_barrier() somewhere, believe it or not. You can argue that it should
> > be done *before*, but it gives no speedup, only potential bugs.
> > 
> > Only case User should do its rcu_barrier() itself is if it knows some call_rcu() are pending
> > and are delaying _objects_ freeing (typical !SLAB_DESTROY_RCU usage in RCU algos).
> > 
> > I dont even understand why you care so much about kmem_cache_destroy(SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU),
> > given that almost nobody use it. We took almost one month to find out what the bug was in first
> > place...
> 
> 
> So maybe the safest thing would be to include the rcu_barrier() to
> insure all objects where freed

I argue that the above is the user's responsibility.  That said, I don't
see why the user would pass a SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU object to call_rcu().
So I would want to see an example of this before inflicting a pair
of rcu_barrier() calls on kmem_cache_destroy().

> And another one for SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to make sure slabs where freed

This last is I believe kmem_cache's responsibility.

							Thanx, Paul

> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> 	/*
> 	 * Make sure no objects are waiting in call_rcu queues to be freed
> 	 */
> 	rcu_barrier();
> 
> 	down_write(&slub_lock);
> 	s->refcount--;
> 	if (!s->refcount) {
>                 list_del(&s->list);
>                 up_write(&slub_lock);
>                 if (kmem_cache_close(s)) {
>                         printk(KERN_ERR "SLUB %s: %s called for cache that "
>                                 "still has objects.\n", s->name, __func__);
>                         dump_stack();
>                 }
> 		/*
> 		 * Make sure no slabs are waiting in call_rcu queues to be freed
> 		 */
>                 if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU)
>                         rcu_barrier();
>                 sysfs_slab_remove(s);
>         } else
>                 up_write(&slub_lock);
> }
--
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/