| 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: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:33:10 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:48:05 +0100
> > From: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
> > To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Minchan Kim
> > <minchan@...nel.org>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
> > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Nitin Gupta
> > <ngupta@...are.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
> > Thunderbird/31.3.0
> >
> > On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >> We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
> > >> under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
> > >> in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
> > >> This patch does it.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
> > >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > >> index 9250b3f54a8f..0299d82275e7 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > >> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > >> {
> > >> size_t index;
> > >> struct zram_meta *meta;
> > >> + struct zcomp *comp;
> > >>
> > >> down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > >>
> > >> @@ -719,20 +720,10 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> meta = zram->meta;
> > >> - /* Free all pages that are still in this zram device */
> > >> - for (index = 0; index < zram->disksize >> PAGE_SHIFT; index++) {
> > >> - unsigned long handle = meta->table[index].handle;
> > >> - if (!handle)
> > >> - continue;
> > >> -
> > >> - zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
> > >> - }
> > >> -
> > >> - zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure about moving zcomp destruction. if we would have detached it
> > > from zram, then yes. otherwise, think of zram ->destoy vs ->init race.
> > >
> > > suppose,
> > > CPU1 waits for down_write() init lock in disksize_store() with new comp already allocated;
> > > CPU0 detaches ->meta and releases write init lock;
> > > CPU1 grabs the lock and does zram->comp = comp;
> > > CPU0 reaches the point of zcomp_destroy(zram->comp);
> >
> > I don't see your point: this patch does not call
> > zcomp_destroy(zram->comp) anymore, but zram_destroy(comp), where comp is
> > the old zram->comp.
>
>
> oh... yes. sorry! my bad.
>
>
>
> anyway, on a second thought, do we even want to destoy meta out of init_lock?
>
> I mean, it will let you init new device quicker. but... assume, you have
> 30G zram (or any other bad-enough number). on CPU0 you reset device -- iterate
> over 30G meta->table, etc. out of init_lock.
> on CPU1 you concurrently re-init device and request again 30G.
>
> how bad that can be?
>
>
>
> diskstore called on already initialised device is also not so perfect.
> we first will try to allocate ->meta (vmalloc pages for another 30G),
> then allocate comp, then down_write() init lock to find out that device
> is initialised and we need to release allocated memory.
>
>
>
> may be we better keep ->meta destruction under init_lock and additionally
> move ->meta and ->comp allocation under init_lock in disksize_store()?
>
> like the following one:
>
> ---
>
> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 9250b3f..827ab21 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -765,9 +765,18 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> + down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> + if (init_done(zram)) {
> + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> + pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> meta = zram_meta_alloc(zram->disk->first_minor, disksize);
> - if (!meta)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + if (!meta) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
>
> comp = zcomp_create(zram->compressor, zram->max_comp_streams);
> if (IS_ERR(comp)) {
> @@ -777,13 +786,6 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> goto out_free_meta;
> }
>
> - down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> - if (init_done(zram)) {
> - pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> - err = -EBUSY;
> - goto out_destroy_comp;
> - }
> -
> zram->meta = meta;
> zram->comp = comp;
> zram->disksize = disksize;
> @@ -799,11 +801,10 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
>
> return len;
>
> -out_destroy_comp:
> - up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> - zcomp_destroy(comp);
> out_free_meta:
> zram_meta_free(meta);
> +out_unlock:
> + up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> return err;
> }
>
The init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call zram_meta_alloc
under init_lock due to lockdep report. Please keep in mind.
The zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it
as read_lock while here holds it as write_lock.
It's a false positive so that we might could make shut lockdep up
by annotation but I don't want it but want to work with lockdep rather
than disable. As well, there are other pathes to use init_lock to
protect other data where would be victims of lockdep.
I didn't tell the motivation of this patch because it made you busy
guys wasted. Let me tell it now. It was another lockdep report by
kmem_cache_destroy for zsmalloc compaction about init_lock. That's why
the patchset was one of the patch in compaction.
Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in this phase and
make code more simple and clear but I don't want to stuck zsmalloc
compaction by the work. Having said that, I feel it's time to revisit
to remove init_lock.
At least, I will think over to find a solution to kill init_lock.
Thanks!
--
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