linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: defer vmalloc from atomic context

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <747aa42a-c236-ee25-eef5-59644687f01b@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:03:58 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
        "Chris Wilson" <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: defer vmalloc from atomic context



On 11/07/2016 06:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:01:45PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>> So because in_atomic doesn't work for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, can we
>>> always defer the work in these cases?
>>>
>>> So for non-preemptible kernels, we always defer:
>>>
>>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || in_atomic()) {
>>>   // defer
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is this fine? Or any other ideas?
>>>
>>
>> What's wrong with my idea?
>> We can add vfree_in_atomic() and use it to free vmapped stacks
>> and for any other places where vfree() used 'in_atomict() && !in_interrupt()' context.
> 
> I somehow missed the mail, sorry.  That beeing said always defer is
> going to suck badly in terms of performance, so I'm not sure it's an all
> that good idea.
> 
> vfree_in_atomic sounds good, but I wonder if we'll need to annotate
> more callers than just the stacks.  I'm fairly bust this week, do you
> want to give that a spin?  Otherwise I'll give it a try towards the
> end of this week or next week.
> 

Yeah, it appears that we need more annotations. I've found another case in free_ldt_struct(),
and I bet it won't be the last.
I'll send patches.