linux-kernel - Re: [Question] Mlocked count will not be decreased

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: <73292b91-1290-6a30-902c-840696cf9ab5@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2017 09:00:33 +0800
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
CC:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, zhongjiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] Mlocked count will not be decreased

Hi Vlastimil,

Thanks for comment.
On 2017/5/24 19:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 01:38 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>
>>> Race condition with what? Who else would isolate our pages?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vlastimil,
>>
>> I find the root cause, if the page was not cached on the current cpu,
>> lru_add_drain() will not push it to LRU. So we should handle fail
>> case in mlock_vma_page().
> 
> Yeah that would explain it.
> 
>> follow_page_pte()
>> 		...
>> 		if (page->mapping && trylock_page(page)) {
>> 			lru_add_drain();  /* push cached pages to LRU */
>> 			/*
>> 			 * Because we lock page here, and migration is
>> 			 * blocked by the pte's page reference, and we
>> 			 * know the page is still mapped, we don't even
>> 			 * need to check for file-cache page truncation.
>> 			 */
>> 			mlock_vma_page(page);
>> 			unlock_page(page);
>> 		}
>> 		...
>>
>> I think we should add yisheng's patch, also we should add the following change.
>> I think it is better than use lru_add_drain_all().
> 
> I agree about yisheng's fix (but v2 didn't address my comments). I don't
> think we should add the hunk below, as that deviates from the rest of
> the design.
> 
Sorry, I have sent the patch before your comment. Anyway I will send another version
as your suggestion.

Thanks
Yisheng Xie