linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPa8GCA8q=S9sYx-0rDmecPxYkFs=gATGL-Dz0OYXDkwEECJkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:13:05 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

2012/4/24 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>:
> On 04/24/2012 02:16 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
>> (2012/04/23 17:55), Minchan Kim wrote:
>>
>>> As I test some code, I found a problem about deadlock by lockdep.
>>> The reason I saw the message is __vmalloc calls map_vm_area which calls
>>> pud/pmd_alloc without gfp_t. so although we call __vmalloc with
>>> GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOIO, it ends up allocating pages with GFP_KERNEL.
>>> The should be a BUG. This patch fixes it by passing gfp_to to low page
>>> table allocate functions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>>
>>
>> Hmm ? vmalloc should support GFP_ATOMIC ?
>
>
> I'm not sure but alloc_large_system_hash already has used.
> And it's not specific on GFP_ATOMIC.
> We have to care of GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO to prevent deadlock on reclaim
> context.
> There are some places to use GFP_NOFS and we don't emit any warning
> message in case of that.

What's the lockdep warning?

vmalloc was never supposed to use gfp flags for allocation "context"
restriction. I.e., it
was always supposed to have blocking, fs, and io capable allocation
context. The flags
were supposed to be a memory type modifier.

These different classes of flags is a bit of a problem and source of
confusion we have.
We should be doing more checks for them, of course.

I suspect you need to fix the caller?

Thanks,
Nick
--
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/