linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2014-02-05 list_lru

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: <20140207125233.4b84482453da6a656ff427dd@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:52:33 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mmotm 2014-02-05 list_lru_add lockdep splat

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:41:36 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:

> 
> Make the shadow lru->node[i].lock IRQ-safe to remove the order
> dictated by interruption.  This slightly increases the IRQ-disabled
> section in the shadow shrinker, but it still drops all locks and
> enables IRQ after every reclaimed shadow radix tree node.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/workingset.c
> +++ b/mm/workingset.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,10 @@ static unsigned long count_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
>  	unsigned long max_nodes;
>  	unsigned long pages;
>  
> +	local_irq_disable();
>  	shadow_nodes = list_lru_count_node(&workingset_shadow_nodes, sc->nid);
> +	local_irq_enable();

This is a bit ugly-looking.

A reader will look at that and wonder why the heck we're disabling
interrupts here.  Against what?  Is there some way in which we can
clarify this?

Perhaps adding list_lru_count_node_irq[save] and
list_lru_walk_node_irq[save] would be better - is it reasonable to
assume this is the only caller of the list_lru code which will ever
want irq-safe treatment?

This is all somewhat a side-effect of list_lru implementing its own
locking rather than requiring caller-provided locking.  It's always a
mistake.

--
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/