linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] vmalloc: purge_fragmented_blocks: Acquire spinlock before reading vmap

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:	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 12:43:32 +0530
From:	Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vmalloc: purge_fragmented_blocks: Acquire spinlock
 before reading vmap_block

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Kautuk Consul wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> index 3231bf3..2228971 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> @@ -855,11 +855,14 @@ static void purge_fragmented_blocks(int cpu)
>>
>>       rcu_read_lock();
>>       list_for_each_entry_rcu(vb, &vbq->free, free_list) {
>> +             spin_lock(&vb->lock);
>>
>> -             if (!(vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS))
>> +             if (!(vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS &&
>> +                       vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS)) {
>> +                     spin_unlock(&vb->lock);
>>                       continue;
>> +             }
>>
>> -             spin_lock(&vb->lock);
>>               if (vb->free + vb->dirty == VMAP_BBMAP_BITS && vb->dirty != VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
>>                       vb->free = 0; /* prevent further allocs after releasing lock */
>>                       vb->dirty = VMAP_BBMAP_BITS; /* prevent purging it again */
>
> Nack, this is wrong because the if-clause you're modifying isn't the
> criteria that is used to determine whether the purge occurs or not.  It's
> merely an optimization to prevent doing exactly what your patch is doing:
> taking vb->lock unnecessarily.

I agree.

>
> In the original code, if the if-clause fails, the lock is only then taken
> and the exact same test occurs again while protected.  If the test now
> fails, the lock is immediately dropped.  A branch here is faster than a
> contented spinlock.

But, if there is some concurrent change happening to vb->free and
vb->dirty, dont you think
that it will continue and then go to the next vmap_block ?

If yes, then it will not be put into the purge list.


So, can we make a change where we simply remove the first check ?
--
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/