linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V9 04/15] hugetlb: use mmu_gather instead of a temporary linked list for accumulating pages

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: <20120613150338.GB14777@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:03:38 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	dhillf@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V9 04/15] hugetlb: use mmu_gather instead of a temporary
 linked list for accumulating pages

On Wed 13-06-12 16:59:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 13-06-12 15:57:23, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Use a mmu_gather instead of a temporary linked list for accumulating
> > pages when we unmap a hugepage range
> 
> Sorry for coming up with the comment that late but you owe us an
> explanation _why_ you are doing this.
> 
> I assume that this fixes a real problem when we take i_mmap_mutex
> already up in 
> unmap_mapping_range
>   mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
>   unmap_mapping_range_tree | unmap_mapping_range_list 
>     unmap_mapping_range_vma
>       zap_page_range_single
>         unmap_single_vma
> 	  unmap_hugepage_range
> 	    mutex_lock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> 
> And that this should have been marked for stable as well (I haven't
> checked when this has been introduced).
> 
> But then I do not see how this help when you still do this:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 1b7dc66..545e18a 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -1326,8 +1326,11 @@ static void unmap_single_vma(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> >  			 * Since no pte has actually been setup, it is
> >  			 * safe to do nothing in this case.
> >  			 */
> > -			if (vma->vm_file)
> > -				unmap_hugepage_range(vma, start, end, NULL);
> > +			if (vma->vm_file) {
> > +				mutex_lock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > +				__unmap_hugepage_range(tlb, vma, start, end, NULL);
> > +				mutex_unlock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > +			}
> >  		} else
> >  			unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, start, end, details);
> >  	}

Ahhh, you are removing the lock in the next patch. Really confusing and
not nice for the stable backport.
Could you merge those two patches and add Cc: stable? 
Then you can add my
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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/