linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] do not dereference NULL pools in pools' destroy() functions

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:	Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:17:55 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] do not dereference NULL pools in pools'
 destroy() functions

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:00:58 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > > Why do this at all?
> >
> > For the third time: because there are approx 200 callsites which are
> > already doing it.
> 
> Did some grepping and I did see some call sites that do this but the
> majority has to do other processing as well.
> 
> 200 call sites? Do we have that many uses of caches? Typical prod system
> have ~190 caches active and the merging brings that down to half of that.

I didn't try terribly hard.

z:/usr/src/linux-4.1-rc7> grep -r -C1 kmem_cache_destroy .  | grep "if [(]" | wc -l
158

It's a lot, anyway.

> > More than half of the kmem_cache_destroy() callsites are declining that
> > value by open-coding the NULL test.  That's reality and we should recognize
> > it.
> 
> Well that may just indicate that we need to have a look at those
> callsites and the reason there to use a special cache at all.

This makes no sense.  Go look at the code. 
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/super25.c, for example.  It's all
in the basic unwind/recover/exit code.

> If the cache
> is just something that kmalloc can provide then why create a special
> cache. On the other hand if something special needs to be accomplished
> then it would make sense to have special processing on kmem_cache_destroy.

This has nothing to do with anything.  We're talking about a basic "if
I created this cache then destroy it" operation.

It's a common pattern.  mm/ exists to serve client code and as a lot of
client code is doing this, we should move it into mm/ so as to serve
client code better.

--
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/