linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MADVISE_FREE, THP: Fix madvise_free_huge

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: <877fdjamjz.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:48:32 -0700
From:	"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"Jerome Marchand" <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Ebru Akagunduz <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MADVISE_FREE, THP: Fix madvise_free_huge_pmd return value after splitting

Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:59:31AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:03:54PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> >> 
>> >> madvise_free_huge_pmd should return 0 if the fallback PTE operations are
>> >> required.  In madvise_free_huge_pmd, if part pages of THP are discarded,
>> >> the THP will be split and fallback PTE operations should be used if
>> >> splitting succeeds.  But the original code will make fallback PTE
>> >> operations skipped, after splitting succeeds.  Fix that via make
>> >> madvise_free_huge_pmd return 0 after splitting successfully, so that the
>> >> fallback PTE operations will be done.
>> >
>> > You're right. Thanks!
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Know issues: if my understanding were correct, return 1 from
>> >> madvise_free_huge_pmd means the following processing for the PMD should
>> >> be skipped, while return 0 means the following processing is still
>> >> needed.  So the function should return 0 only if the THP is split
>> >> successfully or the PMD is not trans huge.  But the pmd_trans_unstable
>> >> after madvise_free_huge_pmd guarantee the following processing will be
>> >> skipped for huge PMD.  So current code can run properly.  But if my
>> >> understanding were correct, we can clean up return code of
>> >> madvise_free_huge_pmd accordingly.
>> >
>> > I like your clean up. Just a minor comment below.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +------
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> >> index 2ad52d5..64dc95d 100644
>> >> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> >> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> >
>> > First of all, let's change ret from int to bool.
>> > And then, add description in the function entry.
>> >
>> > /*
>> >  * Return true if we do MADV_FREE successfully on entire pmd page.
>> >  * Otherwise, return false.
>> >  */
>> >
>> > And do not set to 1 if it is huge_zero_pmd but just goto out to
>> > return false.
>> 
>> Do you want to fold the cleanup with this patch or do that in another
>> patch?
>
> I prefer separating cleanup and bug fix so that we can send only bug
> fix patch to stable tree.

Sure.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying