linux-kernel - Re: Compilation problem with drivers/staging/zsmalloc when !SMP on ARM

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: <CAKGA1bmJ6c4LC=NAD4MU_rBZ2hZjf6qH=C+dqMCf0eP+2vSFdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:11:32 -0600
From:	Matt Sealey <matt@...esi-usa.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linux ARM Kernel ML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Compilation problem with drivers/staging/zsmalloc when !SMP on ARM

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:24:15PM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this linking problem I have
>> right now. If I configure my kernel without SMP support (it is a very
>> lean config for i.MX51 with device tree support only) I hit this error
>> on linking:
>
> Yes, I looked at this, and I've decided that I will _not_ fix this export,
> neither will I accept a patch to add an export.

Understood..

> As far as I can see, this code is buggy in a SMP environment.  There's
> apparantly no guarantee that:
>
> 1. the mapping will be created on a particular CPU.
> 2. the mapping will then be used only on this specific CPU.
> 3. no guarantee that another CPU won't speculatively prefetch from this
>    region.
> 4. when the mapping is torn down, no guarantee that it's the same CPU that
>    used the happing.
>
> So, the use of the local TLB flush leaves all the other CPUs potentially
> containing TLB entries for this mapping.

I'm gonna put this out to the maintainers (Konrad, and Seth since he
committed it) that if this code is buggy it gets taken back out, even
if it makes zsmalloc "slow" on ARM, for the following reasons:

* It's buggy on SMP as Russell describes above
* It might not be buggy on UP (opposite to Russell's description above
as the restrictions he states do not exist), but that would imply an
export for a really core internal MM function nobody should be using
anyway
* By that assessment, using that core internal MM function on SMP is
also bad voodoo that zsmalloc should not be doing

It also either smacks of a lack of comprehensive testing or defiance
of logic that nobody ever built the code without CONFIG_SMP, which
means it was only tested on a bunch of SMP ARM systems (I'm guessing..
Pandaboard? :) or UP systems with SMP/SMP_ON_UP enabled (to expand on
that guess, maybe Beagleboard in some multiplatform Beagle/Panda
hybrid kernel). I am sure I was reading the mailing lists when that
patch was discussed, coded and committed and my guess is correct. In
this case, what we have here anyway is code which when PROPERLY
configured as so..

diff --git a/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
b/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
index 09a9d35..ecf75fb 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ struct zs_pool {
  * mapping rather than copying
  * for object mapping.
 */
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARM)
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
 #define USE_PGTABLE_MAPPING
 #endif

.. such that it even compiles in both "guess" configurations, the
slower Cortex-A8 600MHz single core system gets to use the slow copy
path and the dual-core 1GHz+ Cortex-A9 (with twice the RAM..) gets to
use the fast mapping path. Essentially all the patch does is "improve
performance" on the fastest, best-configured, large-amounts-of-RAM,
lots-of-CPU-performance ARM systems (OMAP4+, Snapdragon, Exynos4+,
marvell armada, i.MX6..) while introducing the problems Russell
describes, and leave performance exactly the same and potentially far
more stable on the slower, memory-limited ARM machines.

Given the purpose of zsmalloc, zram, zcache etc. this somewhat defies
logic. If it's not making the memory-limited, slow ARM systems run
better, what's the point?

So in summary I suggest "we" (Greg? or is it Seth's responsibility?)
should just back out that whole USE_PGTABLE_MAPPING chunk of code
introduced with f553646. Then Russell can carry on randconfiging and I
can build for SMP and UP and get the same code.. with less bugs.

I am sure zsmalloc/zram/zcache2 are not so awful at the end of the day
despite the churn in staging.. but the amount of time I just spent
today with my brain on fire because of cross-referencing mm code for a
linker error, when all I wanted was a non-SMP kernel, I feel Greg's
hurt a little bit.

--
Matt Sealey <matt@...esi-usa.com>
Product Development Analyst, Genesi USA, Inc.
--
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/