linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2 1/2] mm, mmu_notifier: annotate mmu notifiers with blockable invalidate callbacks

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: <0c555671-9214-5cb9-0121-5da04faf5329@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:21:51 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] mm, mmu_notifier: annotate mmu notifiers with
 blockable invalidate callbacks

On 2017/12/16 1:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>  struct mmu_notifier_ops {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Flags to specify behavior of callbacks for this MMU notifier.
>> +	 * Used to determine which context an operation may be called.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * MMU_INVALIDATE_DOES_NOT_BLOCK: invalidate_{start,end} does not
>> +	 *				  block
>> +	 */
>> +	int flags;
> 
> This should be more specific IMHO. What do you think about the following
> wording?
> 
> invalidate_{start,end,range} doesn't block on any locks which depend
> directly or indirectly (via lock chain or resources e.g. worker context)
> on a memory allocation.

I disagree. It needlessly complicates validating the correctness.

What if the invalidate_{start,end} calls schedule_timeout_idle(10 * HZ) ?
schedule_timeout_idle() will not block on any locks which depend directly or
indirectly on a memory allocation, but we are already blocking other memory
allocating threads at mutex_trylock(&oom_lock) in __alloc_pages_may_oom().

This is essentially same with "sleeping forever due to schedule_timeout_killable(1) by
SCHED_IDLE thread with oom_lock held" versus "looping due to mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)
by all other allocating threads" lockup problem. The OOM reaper does not want to get
blocked for so long.