linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb

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: <20180905150008.59d477c1f78f966a8f9c3cc8@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:00:08 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:11 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> >                                            so perhaps we could put some
> > stopgap workaround into that site and add a runtime warning into the
> > put_page() code somewhere to detect puttage of huge pages from hardirq
> > and softirq contexts.
> 
> I think we would add the warning/etc at free_huge_page.  The issue would
> only apply to hugetlb pages, not THP.
> 
> But, the more I think about it the more I think Aneesh's patch to do
> spin_lock/unlock_irqsave is the right way to go.  Currently, we only
> know of one place where a put_page of hugetlb pages is done from softirq
> context.  So, we could take the spin_lock/unlock_bh as Matthew suggested.
> When the powerpc iommu code was added, I doubt this was taken into account.
> I would be afraid of someone adding put_page from hardirq context.

Me too.  If we're going to do this, surely we should make hugepages
behave in the same fashion as PAGE_SIZE pages.