linux-kernel - Re: vmalloc with GFP

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: <20180424165532.GO17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:55:32 -0600
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS

On Tue 24-04-18 12:46:55, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > it seems that we still have few vmalloc users who perform GFP_NOFS
> > allocation:
> > drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c
> > fs/ext4/xattr.c
> > fs/gfs2/dir.c
> > fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > fs/nfs/blocklayout/extent_tree.c
> > fs/ubifs/debug.c
> > fs/ubifs/lprops.c
> > fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c
> > fs/ubifs/orphan.c
> > 
> > Unfortunatelly vmalloc doesn't suppoer GFP_NOFS semantinc properly
> > because we do have hardocded GFP_KERNEL allocations deep inside the
> > vmalloc layers. That means that if GFP_NOFS really protects from
> > recursion into the fs deadlocks then the vmalloc call is broken.
> > 
> > What to do about this? Well, there are two things. Firstly, it would be
> > really great to double check whether the GFP_NOFS is really needed. I
> > cannot judge that because I am not familiar with the code. It would be
> > great if the respective maintainers (hopefully get_maintainer.sh pointed
> > me to all relevant ones). If there is not reclaim recursion issue then
> > simply use the standard vmalloc (aka GFP_KERNEL request).
> > 
> > If the use is really valid then we have a way to do the vmalloc
> > allocation properly. We have memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} scope api. How
> > does that work? You simply call memalloc_nofs_save when the reclaim
> > recursion critical section starts (e.g. when you take a lock which is
> > then used in the reclaim path - e.g. shrinker) and memalloc_nofs_restore
> > when the critical section ends. _All_ allocations within that scope
> > will get GFP_NOFS semantic automagically. If you are not sure about the
> > scope itself then the easiest workaround is to wrap the vmalloc itself
> > with a big fat comment that this should be revisited.
> > 
> > Does that sound like something that can be done in a reasonable time?
> > I have tried to bring this up in the past but our speed is glacial and
> > there are attempts to do hacks like checking for abusers inside the
> > vmalloc which is just too ugly to live.
> > 
> > Please do not hesitate to get back to me if something is not clear.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > -- 
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
> 
> I made a patch that adds memalloc_noio/fs_save around these calls a year 
> ago: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1707.0/01376.html

Yeah, and that is the wrong approach. Let's try to fix this properly
this time. As the above outlines, the worst case we can end up mid-term
would be to wrap vmalloc calls with the scope api with a TODO. But I am
pretty sure the respective maintainers can come up with a better
solution. I am definitely willing to help here.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs