linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Add a reason for reserved pages in has_unmovable

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: <20191005142232.e08976cf8905824fad0533ff@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:22:32 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Add a reason for reserved pages in
 has_unmovable_pages()

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:41:50 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> > > This is just insane. The hotplug code is in no way special wrt printk.
> > > It is never called from the printk code AFAIK and thus there is no real
> > > reason why this particular code should be any special. Not to mention
> > > it calls printk indirectly from a code that is shared with other code
> > > paths.
> > 
> > Basically, printk() while holding the zone_lock will be problematic as console
> > is doing the opposite as it always needs to allocate some memory. Then, it will
> > always find some way to form this chain,
> > 
> > console_lock -> * -> zone_lock.
> 
> So this is not as much a hotplug specific problem but zone->lock ->
> printk -> alloc chain that is a problem, right? Who is doing an
> allocation from this atomic context? I do not see any atomic allocation
> in kernel/printk/printk.c.

Apparently some console drivers can do memory allocation on the printk()
path.

This behavior is daft, IMO.  Have we identified which ones and looked
into fixing them?