linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: might

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: <20180306123655.957e5b6b20b200505544ea7a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:36:55 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com, mhocko@...e.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, paul.burton@...s.com,
        miles.chen@...iatek.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mgorman@...e.de,
        hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: might_sleep warning

On Tue,  6 Mar 2018 14:20:22 -0500 Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com> wrote:

> Robot reported this issue:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/27/851
> 
> That is introduced by:
> mm: initialize pages on demand during boot
> 
> The problem is caused by changing static branch value within spin lock.
> Spin lock disables preemption, and changing static branch value takes
> mutex lock in its path, and thus may sleep.
> 
> The fix is to add another boolean variable to avoid the need to change
> static branch within spinlock.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1579,6 +1579,7 @@ static int __init deferred_init_memmap(void *data)
>   * page_alloc_init_late() soon after smp_init() is complete.
>   */
>  static __initdata DEFINE_SPINLOCK(deferred_zone_grow_lock);
> +static bool deferred_zone_grow __initdata = true;
>  static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(deferred_pages);
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1616,7 +1617,7 @@ deferred_grow_zone(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order)
>  	 * Bail if we raced with another thread that disabled on demand
>  	 * initialization.
>  	 */
> -	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&deferred_pages)) {
> +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&deferred_pages) || !deferred_zone_grow) {
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&deferred_zone_grow_lock, flags);
>  		return false;
>  	}
> @@ -1683,10 +1684,15 @@ void __init page_alloc_init_late(void)
>  	/*
>  	 * We are about to initialize the rest of deferred pages, permanently
>  	 * disable on-demand struct page initialization.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note: it is prohibited to modify static branches in non-preemptible
> +	 * context. Since, spin_lock() disables preemption, we must use an
> +	 * extra boolean deferred_zone_grow.
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock(&deferred_zone_grow_lock);
> -	static_branch_disable(&deferred_pages);
> +	deferred_zone_grow = false;
>  	spin_unlock(&deferred_zone_grow_lock);
> +	static_branch_disable(&deferred_pages);
>  
>  	/* There will be num_node_state(N_MEMORY) threads */
>  	atomic_set(&pgdat_init_n_undone, num_node_state(N_MEMORY));

Kinda ugly, but I can see the logic behind the decisions.

Can we instead turn deferred_zone_grow_lock into a mutex?