linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG

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: <20171116120216.nxbwkj5y3kvim6cj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:02:16 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@....com, jack@...e.cz, jlayton@...hat.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        rgoldwyn@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, pombredanne@...b.com,
        vinmenon@...eaurora.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG_locked locks

[I have only briefly looked at patches so I might have missed some
details.]

On Thu 16-11-17 12:14:25, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Although lock_page() and its family can cause deadlock, lockdep have not
> worked with them, because unlock_page() might be called in a different
> context from the acquire context, which violated lockdep's assumption.
>
> Now CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE has been introduced, lockdep can work
> with page locks.

I definitely agree that debugging page_lock deadlocks is a major PITA
but your implementation seems prohibitively too expensive.

[...]
> @@ -218,6 +222,10 @@ struct page {
>  #ifdef LAST_CPUPID_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS
>  	int _last_cpupid;
>  #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK
> +	struct lockdep_map_cross map;
> +#endif
>  }

now you are adding 
struct lockdep_map_cross {
        struct lockdep_map         map;                  /*     0    40 */
        struct cross_lock          xlock;                /*    40    56 */
        /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) was 32 bytes ago --- */

        /* size: 96, cachelines: 2, members: 2 */
        /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */
};

for each struct page. So you are doubling the size. Who is going to
enable this config option? You are moving this to page_ext in a later
patch which is a good step but it doesn't go far enough because this
still consumes those resources. Is there any problem to make this
kernel command line controllable? Something we do for page_owner for
example?

Also it would be really great if you could give us some measures about
the runtime overhead. I do not expect it to be very large but this is
something people are usually interested in when enabling debugging
features.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs