linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] percpu: improve allocation success rate for non-GFP

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: <20170227204527.GG8707@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:45:27 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] percpu: improve allocation success rate for
 non-GFP_KERNEL callers

Hello, Tahsin.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:37:59PM -0800, Tahsin Erdogan wrote:
> > Ah, absolutely, that's a stupid failure but we should be able to fix
> > that by making the blkg functions take gfp mask and allocate
> > accordingly, right?  It'll probably take preallocation tricks because
> > of locking but should be doable.
> 
> My initial goal was to allow calls to vmalloc(), but I now see the
> challenges in that
> approach.

I'd love to see that working too but this is a different issue.  Even
GFP_ATOMIC can fail under pressure and it's kinda wrong to depend on
that for userspace interactions.

> Doing preallocations would probably work but not sure if that can be
> done without
> complicating code too much. Could you describe what you have in mind?

So, blkg_create() already takes @new_blkg argument which is the
preallocated blkg and used during q init.  Wouldn't it work to make
blkg_lookup_create() take @new_blkg too and pass it down to
blkg_create() (and also free it if it doesn't get used)?  Then,
blkg_conf_prep() can always (or after a failure with -ENOMEM) allocate
a new blkg before calling into blkg_lookup_create().  I don't think
it'll complicate the code path that much.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun