linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: avoid slub allocation while holding list

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: <20190912004401.jdemtajrspetk3fh@box>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 03:44:01 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: avoid slub allocation while holding list_lock

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 06:29:28PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> If we are already under list_lock, don't call kmalloc(). Otherwise we
> will run into deadlock because kmalloc() also tries to grab the same
> lock.
> 
> Instead, statically allocate bitmap in struct kmem_cache_node. Given
> currently page->objects has 15 bits, we bloat the per-node struct by
> 4K. So we waste some memory but only do so when slub debug is on.

Why not have single page total protected by a lock?

Listing object from two pages at the same time doesn't make sense anyway.
Cuncurent validating is not something sane to do.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov