linux-kernel - Re: bdi_min_ratio never shrinks, ultimately preventing valid setting of min

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: <20110607171347.a0bbdfd8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:13:47 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	lkml@...garu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	miklos <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: bdi_min_ratio never shrinks, ultimately preventing valid
 setting of min_ratio

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:25:58 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 13:32 -0500, lkml@...garu.com wrote:
> > > > There is no place in this listing where the value is decremented by the
> > > > respective bdi's min_ratio when a bdi is torn down. 
> > > 
> > > There is, adding a negative number is equal to a subtraction.
> > > 
> > >                 min_ratio -= bdi->min_ratio;
> > >                 if (bdi_min_ratio + min_ratio < 100) {
> > >                         bdi_min_ratio += min_ratio;
> > >                         bdi->min_ratio += min_ratio;
> > >                 }
> > > 
> > > is the relevant piece, note that bdi->min_ratio is the current setting,
> > > this makes min_ratio the difference between the new and old setting, and
> > > adding this to both bdi_min_ratio (the global sum) and bdi->min_ratio
> > > dtrt regardless if the new value is larger or smaller than the old
> > > value.
> > 
> > This accounts for the repeated setting of min_ratio on the same bdi.  But
> > does bdi_set_min_ratio() get entered with a min_ratio of 0 on bdi removal?
> > If not, we leak the non-zero min_ratio of a removed bdi.
> 
> That does not appear to be the case, good catch. Would you be bitten by
> that particular scenario? If so, does the below cure things for you?
> 
> ---
>  mm/backing-dev.c |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index f032e6e..e56fe35 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -606,6 +606,7 @@ static void bdi_prune_sb(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>  void bdi_unregister(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>  {
>  	if (bdi->dev) {
> +		bdi_set_min_ratio(bdi, 0);
>  		trace_writeback_bdi_unregister(bdi);
>  		bdi_prune_sb(bdi);
>  		del_timer_sync(&bdi->wb.wakeup_timer);

I grabbed this, wrote a changelog and stuck your signed-off-by on it. 
Vito, it would be great if you are able to test this please.

I also added a cc:stable but I didn't work out how far back in time it
goes.  A long way, I think?

--
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/