linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor

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: <20180410175011.GE3614@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:50:12 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:45:56PM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > > How do you envision dealing with the SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU slab caches?
> > > Those must have a defined state of the objects at all times and a constructor is
> > > required for that. And their use of RCU is required for numerous lockless
> > > lookup algorithms in the kernhel.
> >
> > Not at all times.  Only once they've been used.  Re-constructing them
> > once they've been used might break the rcu typesafety, I suppose ...
> > would need to examine the callers.
> 
> Objects can be freed and reused and still be accessed from code that
> thinks the object is the old and not the new object....

Yes, I know, that's the point of RCU typesafety.  My point is that an
object *which has never been used* can't be accessed.  So you don't *need*
a constructor.