linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] powerpc/mmu: drop mmap_sem now that locked

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: <20190424023152.vrnyx4r4oapt7vdy@linux-r8p5>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:31:52 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, jgg@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] powerpc/mmu: drop mmap_sem now that locked_vm is
 atomic

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019, Bueso wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Apr 2019, Daniel Jordan wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:58:45AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>Le 02/04/2019 à 22:41, Daniel Jordan a écrit :
>>>> With locked_vm now an atomic, there is no need to take mmap_sem as
>>>> writer.  Delete and refactor accordingly.
>>>
>>>Could you please detail the change ?
>>
>>Ok, I'll be more specific in the next version, using some of your language in
>>fact.  :)
>>
>>>It looks like this is not the only
>>>change. I'm wondering what the consequences are.
>>>
>>>Before we did:
>>>- lock
>>>- calculate future value
>>>- check the future value is acceptable
>>>- update value if future value acceptable
>>>- return error if future value non acceptable
>>>- unlock
>>>
>>>Now we do:
>>>- atomic update with future (possibly too high) value
>>>- check the new value is acceptable
>>>- atomic update back with older value if new value not acceptable and return
>>>error
>>>
>>>So if a concurrent action wants to increase locked_vm with an acceptable
>>>step while another one has temporarily set it too high, it will now fail.
>>>
>>>I think we should keep the previous approach and do a cmpxchg after
>>>validating the new value.
>
>Wouldn't the cmpxchg alternative also be exposed the locked_vm changing between
>validating the new value and the cmpxchg() and we'd bogusly fail even when there
>is still just because the value changed (I'm assuming we don't hold any locks,
>otherwise all this is pointless).
>
>  current_locked = atomic_read(&mm->locked_vm);
>  new_locked = current_locked + npages;
>  if (new_locked < lock_limit)
>     if (cmpxchg(&mm->locked_vm, current_locked, new_locked) == current_locked)

Err, this being != of course.