[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180410123306.GI21835@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:33:06 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: workingset: fix NULL ptr dereference
On Tue 10-04-18 05:05:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:26:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-04-18 12:40:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > The problem is that the mapping gfp flags are used not only for allocating
> > > pages, but also for allocating the page cache data structures that hold
> > > the pages. F2FS is the only filesystem that set the __GFP_ZERO bit,
> > > so it's the first time anyone's noticed that the page cache passes the
> > > __GFP_ZERO bit through to the radix tree allocation routines, which
> > > causes the radix tree nodes to be zeroed instead of constructed.
> > >
> > > I think the right solution to this is:
> >
> > This just hides the underlying problem that the node is not fully and
> > properly initialized. Relying on the previous released state is just too
> > subtle.
>
> That's the fundamental design of slab-with-constructors. The user provides
> a constructor, so all newly allocagted objects are initialised to a known
> state, then the user will restore the object to that state when it frees
> the object to slab.
And that is fundamentally subtle semantic and leads to bugs. So we
should reconsider whether that is really worth keeping for the radix
tree.
> > Are you going to blacklist all potential gfp flags that come
> > from the mapping? This is just unmaintainable! If anything this should
> > be an explicit & with the allowed set of allowed flags.
>
> Oh, I agree that using the set of flags used to allocate the page
> in order to allocate the radix tree nodes is a pretty horrible idea.
>
> Your suggestion, then, is:
>
> - error = radix_tree_preload(gfp_mask & ~__GFP_HIGHMEM);
> + error = radix_tree_preload(gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
>
> correct?
Something like that, yes.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists