linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] HWPOISON: remove the unsafe __set_page

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: <20090928084401.GA22131@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:44:01 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] HWPOISON: remove the unsafe __set_page_locked()

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 03:20:25AM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:47:39PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > 
> > > And standard deviation is 0.04%, much larger than the difference 0.008% ..
> > 
> > Sorry that's not correct. I improved the accounting by treating
> > function0+function1 from two CPUs as an integral entity:
> > 
> >                  total time      add_to_page_cache_lru   percent  stddev
> >          before  3880166848.722  9683329.610             0.250%   0.014%
> >          after   3828516894.376  9778088.870             0.256%   0.012%
> >          delta                                           0.006%
> 
> I don't understand why you're doing this NFS workload to measure?

Because it is the first convenient workload hit my mind, and avoids
real disk IO :)

> I see significant nfs, networking protocol and device overheads in
> your profiles, also you're hitting some locks or something which
> is causing massive context switching. So I don't think this is a
> good test.

Yes there are overheads. However it is a real and common workload.

> But anyway as Hugh points out, you need to compare with a
> *completely* fixed kernel, which includes auditing all users of page
> flags non-atomically (slab, notably, but possibly also other
> places).

That's good point. We can do more benchmarks when more fixes are
available. However I suspect their design goal will be "fix them
without introducing noticeable overheads" :)

> One other thing to keep in mind that I will mention is that I am
> going to push in a patch to the page allocator to allow callers
> to avoid the refcounting (atomic_dec_and_test) in page lifetime,
> which is especially important for SLUB and takes more cycles off
> the page allocator...
>
> I don't know exactly what you're going to do after that to get a
> stable reference to slab pages. I guess you can read the page
> flags and speculatively take some slab locks and recheck etc...

For reliably we could skip page lock on zero refcounted pages.

We may lose the PG_hwpoison bit on races with __SetPageSlub*, however
it should be an acceptable imperfection.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/