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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:06:32 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:46:43 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote: > > +/* > > + * The difference between remove_partial and remove_freed_partial > > + * is that remove_freed_partial happens only on a a freed slab > > Duplicate "a" there. oops. > > > + * that should not have anyone accessing it, and thus does not > > + * require the n->list_lock. > > + */ > > +static inline void remove_freed_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n, > > + struct page *page) > > +{ > > + __remove_partial(n, page); > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -3195,7 +3212,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac > > > > list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, &n->partial, lru) { > > if (!page->inuse) { > > - remove_partial(n, page); > > + remove_freed_partial(n, page); > > discard_slab(s, page); > > } else { > > list_slab_objects(s, page, > > We'll want to do something similiar for the add_partial() called from > early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(), right? It had the added n->list_lock for > the same reason and is done during early init where nobody else can be > referencing a kmem_cache_node. > > It would probably be better to define these in terms of "partial slabs > that cannot have anyone else accessing it" rather than "freed slabs". Perhaps then we just use the __remove_partial() and __add_partial() that does not do the checks. That's common practice to use a "__" to denote that it's special and usually doesn't require locking. -- Steve -- 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