linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -V7] mm, swap: fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87mumxa3sy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:50:21 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        J�r�me Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -V7] mm, swap: fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:07:37PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Before, we choose to use stop_machine() to reduce the overhead of hot
>> path (page fault handler) as much as possible.  But now, I found
>> rcu_read_lock_sched() is just a wrapper of preempt_disable().  So maybe
>> we can switch to RCU version now.
>
> rcu_read_lock looks more efficient than rcu_read_lock_sched. So for
> this purpose in the fast path rcu_read_lock()/unlock() should be the
> preferred methods, no need to force preempt_disable() (except for
> debug purposes if sleep debug is enabled). Server builds are done with
> voluntary preempt (no preempt shouldn't even exist as config option)
> and there rcu_read_lock might be just a noop.

If

CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT=n
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n

which is common for servers,

rcu_read_lock() will be a noop, rcu_read_lock_sched() and
preempt_disable() will be barrier().  So rcu_read_lock() is a little
better.

> Against a fast path rcu_read_lock/unlock before the consolidation
> synchronize_rcu would have been enough, now after the consolidation
> even more certain that it's enough because it's equivalent to _mult.

Yes.  Will change to rcu_read_lock/unlock based method.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying