linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: Fix release_pages() when releasing devmap pages

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: <20190524153625.GA23100@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 08:36:25 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: Fix release_pages() when releasing devmap pages

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 08:58:12PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:37 PM <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> >
> > Device pages can be more than type MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC.
> >
> > Handle all device pages within release_pages()
> >
> > This was found via code inspection while determining if release_pages()
> > and the new put_user_pages() could be interchangeable.
> >
> > Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/swap.c | 7 +++----
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index 3a75722e68a9..d1e8122568d0 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -739,15 +739,14 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr)
> >                 if (is_huge_zero_page(page))
> >                         continue;
> >
> > -               /* Device public page can not be huge page */
> > -               if (is_device_public_page(page)) {
> > +               if (is_zone_device_page(page)) {
> >                         if (locked_pgdat) {
> >                                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&locked_pgdat->lru_lock,
> >                                                        flags);
> >                                 locked_pgdat = NULL;
> >                         }
> > -                       put_devmap_managed_page(page);
> > -                       continue;
> > +                       if (put_devmap_managed_page(page))
> 
> This "shouldn't" fail, and if it does the code that follows might get

I agree it shouldn't based on the check.  However...

> confused by a ZONE_DEVICE page. If anything I would make this a
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!put_devmap_managed_page(page)), but always continue
> unconditionally.

I was trying to follow the pattern from put_page()  Where if fails it indicated
it was not a devmap page and so "regular" processing should continue.

Since I'm unsure I'll just ask what does this check do?

        if (!static_branch_unlikely(&devmap_managed_key))
                return false;

... In put_devmap_managed_page()?

> 
> Other than that you can add:
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>

Thanks v2 to follow.

Ira