linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] Sanitize usage of ->flags and ->mapping for tail pages

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:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:55:35 +0200
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Sanitize usage of ->flags and ->mapping for tail
 pages

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:48PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Yes, it works until some sound driver decide it wants to use
> > page->mappging.
> 
> (a) Why would it want to use page->mapping?

No idea.

> (b) What's the problem if it wants to use page->mapping?

It would need to be initalized for all subpages to get core mm see correct
value. And this doesn't match with current ->mapping users of __GFP_COMP
page (THP and hugetlb) which initialize ->mapping only for head pages.

> (c) Or perhaps some __GFP_COMP driver does already use page->mapping?

I haven't found any.

> > It's just pure luck that it happened to work in this particular case.
> 
> We were lucky that it fitted together without needing extra code, yes.
> But this didn't happen by accident, it was known and considered.

I don't agree it was considered well enough.

> > You only need to pay the expense if you hit tail page which is very rare
> > in current kernel. I think we can pay this cost for correctness.
> 
> But it's correct as is.

See above.

> > 
> > We will shave some cost of compound_head() if/when my refcounting patchset
> > get merged: no need of barrier anymore.
> 
> And if these changes are necessary for that, sure, go ahead:
> but as part of that work.

I believe the patchset has value by its own. And having it merged makes my
life easier. But up to Andrew.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/