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  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:	Fri, 3 Jan 2014 13:00:23 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Dave Jones <>,
	Darren Hart <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Mel Gorman <>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: fix the theoretical compound_lock() vs
 prep_new_page() race

On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 20:55:47 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:

> get/put_page(thp_tail) paths do get_page_unless_zero(page_head) +
> compound_lock(). In theory this page_head can be already freed and
> reallocated as alloc_pages(__GFP_COMP, smaller_order). In this case
> get_page_unless_zero() can succeed right after set_page_refcounted(),
> and compound_lock() can race with the non-atomic __SetPageHead().

Would be useful to mention that these things are happening inside
prep_compound_opage() (yes?).

> Perhaps we should rework the thp locking (under discussion), but
> until then this patch moves set_page_refcounted() and adds wmb()
> to ensure that page->_count != 0 comes as a last change.
> I am not sure about other callers of set_page_refcounted(), but at
> first glance they look fine to me.

I don't get it.  We're in prep_new_page() - this page is freshly
allocated and no other thread yet has any means by which to look it up
and start fiddling with it?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists