Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:48:43 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jenifer Hopper <jhopper@...ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickens <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 2/4] zbud: add to mm/

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:43:44PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:29:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > memory_failure() is merely an example of a general problem: code which
> > > > reads from the memmap[] array and expects its elements to be of type
> > > > `struct page'.  Other examples might be memory hotplugging, memory leak
> > > > checkers etc.  I have vague memories of out-of-tree patches
> > > > (bigphysarea?) doing this as well.
> > > > 
> > > > It's a general problem to which we need a general solution.
> > > 
> > > <Obi-tmem Kenobe slowly materializes... "use the force, Luke!">
> > > 
> > > One could reasonably argue that any code that makes incorrect
> > > assumptions about the contents of a struct page structure is buggy
> > > and should be fixed.
> > 
> > Well it has type "struct page" and all code has a right to expect the
> > contents to match that type.
> > 
> > >  Isn't the "general solution" already described
> > > in the following comment, excerpted from include/linux/mm.h, which
> > > implies that "scribbling on existing pageframes" [carefully], is fine?
> > > (And, if not, shouldn't that comment be fixed, or am I misreading
> > > it?)
> > > 
> > > <start excerpt>
> > >  * For the non-reserved pages, page_count(page) denotes a reference count.
> > >  *   page_count() == 0 means the page is free. page->lru is then used for
> > >  *   freelist management in the buddy allocator.
> > >  *   page_count() > 0  means the page has been allocated.
> > 
> > Well kinda maybe.  How all the random memmap-peekers handle this I do
> > not know.  Setting PageReserved is a big hammer which should keep other
> > little paws out of there, although I guess it's abusive of whatever
> > PageReserved is supposed to mean.
> > 
> > It's what we used to call a variant record.  The tag is page.flags and
> > the protocol is, umm,
> > 
> > PageReserved: doesn't refer to a page at all - don't touch
> > PageSlab: belongs to slab or slub
> > !PageSlab: regular kernel/user/pagecache page
> 
> In the !PageSlab case, the page _count has to be considered to determine if the
> page is a free page or if it is an allocated non-slab page.
> 
> So looking at the fields that need to remained untouched in the struct page for
> the memmap-peekers, they are
> - page->flags
> - page->_count
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> > 
> > Are there any more?
> > 
> > So what to do here?  How about
> > 
> > - Position the zbud fields within struct page via the preferred
> >   means: editing its definition.
> > 
> > - Decide upon and document the means by which the zbud variant is tagged
> 
> I'm not sure if there is going to be a way to tag zbud pages in particular
> without using a page flag.  However, if we can tag it as a non-slab allocated
> kernel page with no userspace mappings, that could be sufficient.  I think this
> can be done with:
> 
> !PageSlab(p) && page_count(p) > 0 && page_mapcount(p) <= 0
> 
> An alternative is to set PG_slab for zbud pages then we get all the same
> treatment as slab pages, which is basically what we want. Setting PG_slab
> also conveys that no assumption can be made about the contents of _mapcount.
> 
> However, a memmap-peeker could call slab functions on the page which obviously
> won't be under the control of the slab allocator. Afaict though, it doesn't
> seem that any of them do this since there aren't any functions in the slab
> allocator API that take raw struct pages.  The worst I've seen is calling
> shrink_slab in an effort to get the slab allocator to free up the page.

And does it error out properly on non-slab-pages-but-have-PG_slab set?
> 
> In summary, I think that maintaining a positive page->_count and setting
> PG_slab on zbud pages should provide safety against existing memmap-peekers.
> 
> Do you agree?

The page_>_count will thwart memmap-peeker from fiddling around right?

> 
> Seth
> 
> > 
> > - Demonstrate how this is safe against existing memmap-peekers
> > 
> > - Do all this without consuming another page flag :)
> > 
> 
--
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