linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem

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: <20130516101907.d102dd91.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 May 2013 10:19:07 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>
Cc:	Raul Xiong <raulxiong@...il.com>,
	Neil Zhang <glacier1980@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Shankar Brahadeeswaran <shankoo77@...il.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Bringert <bringert@...gle.com>,
	devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Anjana V Kumar <anjanavk12@...il.com>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem_shrink deadlock.

On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:08:17 -0400 Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > A better approach would be to add a new __GFP_NOSHRINKERS, but it's all
> > variations on a theme.
> 
> I don't like this proposal, either. Many of the existing GFP flags
> already exist to prevent recurse into that flag's respective shrinker.
> 
> This problem seems a rare proper use of mutex_trylock.

Not really.  The need for a trylock is often an indication that a
subsystem has a locking misdesign.  That is indeed the case here.

> > The mutex_trylock(ashmem_mutex) will actually have the best
> > performance, because it skips the least amount of memory reclaim
> > opportunities.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > But it still sucks!  The real problem is that there exists a lock
> > called "ashmem_mutex", taken by both the high-level mmap() and by the
> > low-level shrinker.  And taken by everything else too!  The ashmem
> > locking is pretty crude...
> 
> The locking is "crude" because I optimized for space, not time, and
> there was (and is) no indication we were suffering lock contention due
> to the global lock. I haven't thought through the implications of
> pushing locking into the ashmem_area and ashmem_range objects, but it
> does look like we'd end up often grabbing all of the locks ...
> 
> > What is the mutex_lock() in ashmem_mmap() actually protecting?  I don't
> > see much, apart from perhaps some incidental races around the contents
> > of the file's ashmem_area, and those could/should be protected by a
> > per-object lock, not a global one?
> 
> ... but not, as you note, in ashmem_mmap. The main race there is
> around the allocation of asma->file. That could definitely be a lock
> local to ashmem_area. I'm OK if anyone wants to take that on but it
> seems a lot of work for a driver with an unclear future.

Well, it's not exactly a ton of work, but adding a per-ashmem_area lock
to protect ->file would rather be putting lipstick on a pig.  I suppose
we can put the trylock in there and run away, but it wouldn't hurt to
drop in a big fat comment somewhere explaining that the driver should be
migrated to a per-object locking scheme.

--
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/