linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:1447!

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: <20151005122936.8a3b0fe21629390c9aa8bc2a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:29:36 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:1447!

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:47:13 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> > The fourth best way of fixing this is a nasty short-term bodge, such a
> > the one you just sent ;) But if we're going to do this, it should be
> > the minimal bodge which fixes this deadlock.  Is it possible to come up
> > with a one-liner (plus suitable comment) to get us out of this mess?
> 
> Yes I do agree that the fix I am proposing is short-term but this seems
> like the easiest way to go for stable and older kernels that might be
> affected. I thought your proposal for mapping_gfp_constraint was exactly
> to have all such places annotated for an easier future transition to
> something more reasonable.

hm, OK, let's go that way.  But I expect this mess will continue to
float around for a long time - fixing it nicely will be somewhat
intrusive.

> > Longer-term I suggest we look at generalising the memalloc_noio_foo()
> > stuff so as to permit callers to mask off (ie: zero) __GFP_ flags in
> > callees.  I have a suspicion we should have done this 15 years ago
> > (which is about when I started wanting to do it).
> 
> I am not sure memalloc_noio_foo is a huge win. It is an easy hack where
> the whole allocation transaction is clear - like in the PM code. I am
> not sure this is true also for the FS.

mm..  I think it'll work out OK - a set/restore around particular
callsites.

It might get messy in core MM though.  Do we apply current->mask at the
very low levels of the page allocator?  If so, that might muck up
intermediate callers who are peeking into specific gfp_t flags.

Perhaps it would be better to apply the mask at the highest possible
level: wherever a function which was not passed a gfp_t decides to
create one.  Basically a grep for "GFP_".  But then we need to decide
*which* gfp_t-creators need the treatment.  All of them (yikes) or is
this mechanism only for called-via-address_space_operations code?  That
might work.

Maybe it would be better to add the gfp_t argument to the
address_space_operations.  At a minimum, writepage(), readpage(),
writepages(), readpages().  What a pickle.
--
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/