linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm: kmemleak: replace __GFP_NOFAIL to GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak

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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:02:39 -0600
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Chunyu Hu <chuhu@...hat.com>
Cc:     Chunyu Hu <chuhu.ncepu@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: kmemleak: replace __GFP_NOFAIL to GFP_NOWAIT in
 gfp_kmemleak_mask

On Tue 24-04-18 12:48:50, Chunyu Hu wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...nel.org>
> > To: "Chunyu Hu" <chuhu.ncepu@...il.com>
> > Cc: "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@...gle.com>, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Chunyu Hu"
> > <chuhu@...hat.com>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Linux-MM" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 9:20:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: kmemleak: replace __GFP_NOFAIL to GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak_mask
> > 
> > On Mon 23-04-18 12:17:32, Chunyu Hu wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So if there is a new flag, it would be the 25th bits.
> > 
> > No new flags please. Can you simply store a simple bool into fail_page_alloc
> > and have save/restore api for that?
> 
> Hi Michal,
> 
> I still don't get your point. The original NOFAIL added in kmemleak was 
> for skipping fault injection in page/slab  allocation for kmemleak object, 
> since kmemleak will disable itself until next reboot, whenever it hit an 
> allocation failure, in that case, it will lose effect to check kmemleak 
> in errer path rose by fault injection. But NOFAULT's effect is more than 
> skipping fault injection, it's also for hard allocation. So a dedicated flag
> for skipping fault injection in specified slab/page allocation was mentioned.

I am not familiar with the kmemleak all that much, but fiddling with the
gfp_mask is a wrong way to achieve kmemleak specific action. I might be
easilly wrong but I do not see any code that would restore the original
gfp_mask down the kmem_cache_alloc path.

> d9570ee3bd1d ("kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection") 
>   
> Do you mean something like below, with the save/store api? But looks like
> to make it possible to skip a specified allocation, not global disabling,
> a bool is not enough, and a gfp_flag is also needed. Maybe I missed something?

Yes, this is essentially what I meant. It is still a global thing which
is not all that great and if it matters then you can make it per
task_struct. That really depends on the code flow here.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs