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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:31:12 +0200 From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> To: linux-mm@...ck.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, John Allen <jallen@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Rashmica Gupta <rashmica.g@...il.com>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2 0/6] mm: online/offline_pages called w.o. mem_hotplug_lock On 21.08.2018 12:44, David Hildenbrand wrote: > This is the same approach as in the first RFC, but this time without > exporting device_hotplug_lock (requested by Greg) and with some more > details and documentation regarding locking. Tested only on x86 so far. > I'll be on vacation for two weeks starting on Saturday. If there are no comments I'll send this as !RFC once I return. Thanks! > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Reading through the code and studying how mem_hotplug_lock is to be used, > I noticed that there are two places where we can end up calling > device_online()/device_offline() - online_pages()/offline_pages() without > the mem_hotplug_lock. And there are other places where we call > device_online()/device_offline() without the device_hotplug_lock. > > While e.g. > echo "online" > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory9/state > is fine, e.g. > echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory9/online > Will not take the mem_hotplug_lock. However the device_lock() and > device_hotplug_lock. > > E.g. via memory_probe_store(), we can end up calling > add_memory()->online_pages() without the device_hotplug_lock. So we can > have concurrent callers in online_pages(). We e.g. touch in online_pages() > basically unprotected zone->present_pages then. > > Looks like there is a longer history to that (see Patch #2 for details), > and fixing it to work the way it was intended is not really possible. We > would e.g. have to take the mem_hotplug_lock in device/base/core.c, which > sounds wrong. > > Summary: We had a lock inversion on mem_hotplug_lock and device_lock(). > More details can be found in patch 3 and patch 6. > > I propose the general rules (documentation added in patch 6): > > 1. add_memory/add_memory_resource() must only be called with > device_hotplug_lock. > 2. remove_memory() must only be called with device_hotplug_lock. This is > already documented and holds for all callers. > 3. device_online()/device_offline() must only be called with > device_hotplug_lock. This is already documented and true for now in core > code. Other callers (related to memory hotplug) have to be fixed up. > 4. mem_hotplug_lock is taken inside of add_memory/remove_memory/ > online_pages/offline_pages. > > To me, this looks way cleaner than what we have right now (and easier to > verify). And looking at the documentation of remove_memory, using > lock_device_hotplug also for add_memory() feels natural. > > > RFC -> RFCv2: > - Don't export device_hotplug_lock, provide proper remove_memory/add_memory > wrappers. > - Split up the patches a bit. > - Try to improve powernv memtrace locking > - Add some documentation for locking that matches my knowledge > > David Hildenbrand (6): > mm/memory_hotplug: make remove_memory() take the device_hotplug_lock > mm/memory_hotplug: make add_memory() take the device_hotplug_lock > mm/memory_hotplug: fix online/offline_pages called w.o. > mem_hotplug_lock > powerpc/powernv: hold device_hotplug_lock when calling device_online() > powerpc/powernv: hold device_hotplug_lock in memtrace_offline_pages() > memory-hotplug.txt: Add some details about locking internals > > Documentation/memory-hotplug.txt | 39 +++++++++++- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c | 14 +++-- > .../platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c | 8 +-- > drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 4 +- > drivers/base/memory.c | 22 +++---- > drivers/xen/balloon.c | 3 + > include/linux/memory_hotplug.h | 4 +- > mm/memory_hotplug.c | 59 +++++++++++++++---- > 8 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists