linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] virtio_balloon: introduce migration primitives to balloon 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]

Date:	Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:54:10 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] virtio_balloon: introduce migration primitives to
 balloon pages

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:47:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:42:44AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > Reading two atomics and doing math? Result can even be negative.
> > I did not look at use closely but it looks suspicious.
> Doc on atomic_read says:
> "
> The read is atomic in that the return value is guaranteed to be one of the
> values initialized or modified with the interface operations if a proper
> implicit or explicit memory barrier is used after possible runtime
> initialization by any other thread and the value is modified only with the
> interface operations.
> "
> 
> There's no runtime init by other thread than balloon's itself at device register,
> and the operations (inc, dec) are made by the proper interface operations
> only when protected by the spinlock pages_lock. It does not look suspicious, IMHO.

Any use of multiple atomics is suspicious.
Please just avoid it if you can. What's wrong with locking?

> I'm failing to see how it could become a negative on that case, since you cannot
> isolate more pages than what was previoulsy inflated to balloon's list.

There is no order guarantee. So in
A - B you can read B long after both A and B has been incremented.
Maybe it is safe in this case but it needs careful documentation
to explain how ordering works. Much easier to keep it all simple.

> 
> > It's already the case everywhere except __wait_on_isolated_pages,
> > so just fix that, and then we can keep using int instead of atomics.
> > 
> Sorry, I quite didn't get you here. fix what?

It's in the text you removed above. Access values under lock.

>  
> > That's 1K on stack - and can become more if we increase
> > VIRTIO_BALLOON_ARRAY_PFNS_MAX.  Probably too much - this is the reason
> > we use vb->pfns.
> >
> If we want to use vb->pfns we'll have to make leak_balloon mutual exclusive with
> page migration (as it was before), but that will inevictably bring us back to
> the discussion on breaking the loop when isolated pages make leak_balloon find
> less pages than it wants to release at each leak round.
> 

I don't think this is an issue. The issue was busy waiting in that case.

-- 
MST
--
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/