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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:52:37 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <>
To:	Mel Gorman <>, Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page: no page_count check?

Mel, Ingo,

I want to raise again a question I raised (in offline mail with Mel)
a couple of weeks ago.

I see only a page_mapcount check in migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page,
and don't understand how migration can be safe against the possibility
of an earlier call to get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast (intended
to pin a part of the THP) without a page_count check.

(I'm also still somewhat worried about unidentified attempts to
pin the page concurrently; but since I don't have an example to give,
and concurrent get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast wouldn't get past
the pmd_numa, let's not worry too much about my unidentified anxiety ;)

migrate_page_move_mapping and migrate_huge_page_move_mapping check
page_count, but migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page doesn't use those.
__collapse_huge_page_isolate and khugepaged_scan_pmd (over in
huge_memory.c) take commented care to check page_count lest GUP.

I can see that page_count might often be raised by concurrent faults
on the same pmd_numa, waiting on the lock_page in do_huge_pmd_numa_page.
That's unfortunate, and maybe you can find a clever way to discount
those.  But safety must come first: don't we need to check page_count?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists