linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing the wrong VMA information

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:	Wed, 5 May 2010 16:54:54 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing
	the wrong VMA information

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:31:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 5 May 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 
> > rmap_walk() appears to be the only one that takes multiple locks but it itself
> > is not serialised. If there are more than one process calling rmap_walk()
> > on different processes sharing the same VMAs, is there a guarantee they walk
> > it in the same order?
> 
> So I had this notion of the list always getting deeper and us guaranteeing 
> the order in it, but you're right - that's not the 'same_anon_vma' list, 
> it's the 'same_vma' one.
> 
> Damn. So yeah, I don't see us guaranteeing any ordering guarantees. My 
> bad.
> 
> That said, I do wonder if we could _make_ the ordering reliable.

I'm still thinking of the ordering but one possibility would be to use a mutex
similar to mm_all_locks_mutex to force the serialisation of rmap_walk instead
of the trylock-and-retry. That way, the ordering wouldn't matter. It would
slow migration if multiple processes are migrating pages by some unknowable
quantity but it would avoid livelocking.

> I did 
> that for the 'same_vma' one, because I wanted to be able to verify that 
> chains were consistent (and we also needed to be able to find the "oldest 
> anon_vma" for the case of re-instantiating pages that migth exist in 
> multiple different anon_vma's).
> 
> Any ideas?
> 

Not yet.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/