| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1359254187.4159.10.camel@kernel>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:36:27 -0600
From: Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@...il.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Holasek <pholasek@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/11] ksm: get_ksm_page locked
Hi Hugh,
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:00 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> In some places where get_ksm_page() is used, we need the page to be locked.
>
In function get_ksm_page, why check page->mapping =>
get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping instead of
get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping, because
get_page_unless_zero is expensive?
> When KSM migration is fully enabled, we shall want that to make sure that
> the page just acquired cannot be migrated beneath us (raised page count is
> only effective when there is serialization to make sure migration notices).
> Whereas when navigating through the stable tree, we certainly do not want
What's the meaning of "navigating through the stable tree"?
> to lock each node (raised page count is enough to guarantee the memcmps,
> even if page is migrated to another node).
>
> Since we're about to add another use case, add the locked argument to
> get_ksm_page() now.
Why the parameter lock passed from stable_tree_search/insert is true,
but remove_rmap_item_from_tree is false?
>
> Hmm, what's that rcu_read_lock() about? Complete misunderstanding, I
> really got the wrong end of the stick on that! There's a configuration
> in which page_cache_get_speculative() can do something cheaper than
> get_page_unless_zero(), relying on its caller's rcu_read_lock() to have
> disabled preemption for it. There's no need for rcu_read_lock() around
> get_page_unless_zero() (and mapping checks) here. Cut out that
> silliness before making this any harder to understand.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/ksm.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> --- mmotm.orig/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:53.244205966 -0800
> +++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:58.856206099 -0800
> @@ -514,15 +514,14 @@ static void remove_node_from_stable_tree
> * but this is different - made simpler by ksm_thread_mutex being held, but
> * interesting for assuming that no other use of the struct page could ever
> * put our expected_mapping into page->mapping (or a field of the union which
> - * coincides with page->mapping). The RCU calls are not for KSM at all, but
> - * to keep the page_count protocol described with page_cache_get_speculative.
> + * coincides with page->mapping).
> *
> * Note: it is possible that get_ksm_page() will return NULL one moment,
> * then page the next, if the page is in between page_freeze_refs() and
> * page_unfreeze_refs(): this shouldn't be a problem anywhere, the page
> * is on its way to being freed; but it is an anomaly to bear in mind.
> */
> -static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node)
> +static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool locked)
> {
> struct page *page;
> void *expected_mapping;
> @@ -530,7 +529,6 @@ static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct
> page = pfn_to_page(stable_node->kpfn);
> expected_mapping = (void *)stable_node +
> (PAGE_MAPPING_ANON | PAGE_MAPPING_KSM);
> - rcu_read_lock();
> if (page->mapping != expected_mapping)
> goto stale;
> if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
> @@ -539,10 +537,16 @@ static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct
> put_page(page);
> goto stale;
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (locked) {
> + lock_page(page);
> + if (page->mapping != expected_mapping) {
> + unlock_page(page);
> + put_page(page);
> + goto stale;
> + }
> + }
> return page;
> stale:
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> remove_node_from_stable_tree(stable_node);
> return NULL;
> }
> @@ -558,11 +562,10 @@ static void remove_rmap_item_from_tree(s
> struct page *page;
>
> stable_node = rmap_item->head;
> - page = get_ksm_page(stable_node);
> + page = get_ksm_page(stable_node, true);
> if (!page)
> goto out;
>
> - lock_page(page);
> hlist_del(&rmap_item->hlist);
> unlock_page(page);
> put_page(page);
> @@ -1042,7 +1045,7 @@ static struct page *stable_tree_search(s
>
> cond_resched();
> stable_node = rb_entry(node, struct stable_node, node);
> - tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node);
> + tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node, false);
> if (!tree_page)
> return NULL;
>
> @@ -1086,7 +1089,7 @@ static struct stable_node *stable_tree_i
>
> cond_resched();
> stable_node = rb_entry(*new, struct stable_node, node);
> - tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node);
> + tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node, false);
> if (!tree_page)
> return NULL;
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists