linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers

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:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 22:02:23 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        "David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>,
        Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers

On 2018/08/24 20:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> That is, this API seems to be currently used by only out-of-tree users. Since
>> we can't check that nobody has memory allocation dependency, I think that
>> hmm_invalidate_range_start() should return -EAGAIN if blockable == false for now.
> 
> The code expects that the invalidate_range_end doesn't block if
> invalidate_range_start hasn't blocked. That is the reason why the end
> callback doesn't have blockable parameter. If this doesn't hold then the
> whole scheme is just fragile because those two calls should pair.
> 
That is

  More worrisome part in that patch is that I don't know whether using
  trylock if blockable == false at entry is really sufficient.

. Since those two calls should pair, I think that we need to determine whether
we need to return -EAGAIN at start call by evaluating both calls.

Like mn_invl_range_start() involves schedule_delayed_work() which could be
blocked on memory allocation under OOM situation, I worry that (currently
out-of-tree) users of this API are involving work / recursion.
And hmm_release() says that

	/*
	 * Drop mirrors_sem so callback can wait on any pending
	 * work that might itself trigger mmu_notifier callback
	 * and thus would deadlock with us.
	 */

and keeps "all operations protected by hmm->mirrors_sem held for write are
atomic". This suggests that "some operations protected by hmm->mirrors_sem held
for read will sleep (and in the worst case involves memory allocation
dependency)".