linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] zram: use atomic64_xxx() to replace zram_stat64

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]

Date:	Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:37:19 +0200
From:	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
To:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] zram: use atomic64_xxx() to replace zram_stat64_xxx()

On 06/05/2013 06:21 PM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 08:02:12 PM CST, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 06:06 PM, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> Use atomic64_xxx() to replace open-coded zram_stat64_xxx().
>>> Some architectures have native support of atomic64 operations,
>>> so we can get rid of the spin_lock() in zram_stat64_xxx().
>>> On the other hand, for platforms use generic version of atomic64
>>> implement, it may cause an extra save/restore of the interrupt
>>> flag.  So it's a tradeoff.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
>>
>> Before optimizing stats, I'd like to make sure that they're correct.
>> What makes 64 bits fields so different that they need atomicity while
>> 32 bits wouldn't? Actually all of them save compr_size only increase,
>> which would make a race less critical than for 32 bits fields that all
>> can go up and down (if a decrement overwrites a increment, the counter
>> can wrap around zero).
>>
>> Jerome
>>
> Hi Jerome,
>           I'm not sure about the design decision, but I could give a 
> guess here.
> 1) All 32-bit counters are only modified by 
> zram_bvec_write()/zram_page_free()
> and is/should be protected by down_write(&zram->lock).

Good point!

> 2) __zram_make_request() modifies some 64-bit counters without 
> protection.
> 3) zram_bvec_write() modifies some 64-bit counters and it's protected 
> with
>      down_read(&zram->lock).

I assume you mean down_write().

> 4) It's always safe for sysfs handler to read 32bit counters.
> 5) It's unsafe for sysfs handler to read 64bit counters on 32bit 
> platforms.

I was unaware of that.

> 
> So it does work with current design, but very hard to understand.
> Suggest to use atomic_t for 32bit counters too for maintainability,
> though may be a little slower.
> Any suggestion?

If atomic counter aren't necessary, no need to use them, but a comment
in zram_stats definition would be nice. Could you add one in your next
version of this patch?

Thanks
Jerome

> Regards!
> Gerry
> 

--
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/