linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hang on anon

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: <AANLkTi=FeHnLu4_6M5N6yUL==4YyxVXXxsccsE2kNUbm@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:55:11 -0700
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hang on anon_vma->root->lock

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:

> The basic problem with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is that you get a reference to
> an object that is guaranteed only to have the same type (the instance may
> fluctuate and be replaced from under you unless other measures are taken).

(I wouldn't describe that as a "problem with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU":
it's precisely the nature of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, what makes it useful
in solving backward-locking problems elsewhere.)

>
> Typically one must take a lock within the memory structure to pin down
> the object (or take a refcount). Only then can you follow pointers and
> such. It is only possible to verify that the right object has been
> reached *after* locking. Following a pointer without having determined
> that we hit the right object should not occur.
>
> A solution here would be to take the anon_vma->lock (prevents the object
> switching under us) and then verify that the mapping is the one we are
> looking for and that the pointer points to the right root. Then take the
> root lock.
>
> Hughs solution takes a global spinlock which will limit scalability.

Eh?  My solution was a second page_mapped(page) test i.e. testing an atomic.

Hugh
--
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/