linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Use GFP_KERNEL allocation for the page cache in page_cache

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: <20150326214354.GG28129@dastard>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:43:54 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Use GFP_KERNEL allocation for the page cache in
 page_cache_read

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:53:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 20-03-15 14:48:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:44:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Or did I miss your point? Are you concerned about some fs overloading
> > > filemap_fault and do some locking before delegating to filemap_fault?
> > 
> > The latter:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git/commit/?h=xfs-mmap-lock&id=de0e8c20ba3a65b0f15040aabbefdc1999876e6b
> 
> Hmm. I am completely unfamiliar with the xfs code but my reading of
> 964aa8d9e4d3..723cac484733 is that the newly introduced lock should be
> OK from the reclaim recursion POV. It protects against truncate and
> punch hole, right? Or are there any internal paths which I am missing
> and would cause problems if we do GFP_FS with XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED held?

It might be OK, but you're only looking at the example I gave you,
not the fundamental issue it demonstrates. That is: filesystems may
have *internal dependencies that are unknown to the page cache or mm
subsystem*. Hence the page cache or mm allocations cannot
arbitrarily ignore allocation constraints the filesystem assigns to
mapping operations....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/