linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: vmalloc: Use the vmap_area_lock to protect ne_fit_preload

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 18:34:43 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmalloc: Use the vmap_area_lock to protect
 ne_fit_preload_node

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:23:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> Hello, Daniel, Sebastian.
> 
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:30:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On 2019-10-04 18:20:41 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > If we have migrate_disable/enable, then, i think preempt_enable/disable
> > > > > should be replaced by it and not the way how it has been proposed
> > > > > in the patch.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think this patch is appropriate for upstream.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I agree. The discussion made this clear, this is only for -rt
> > > trees. Initially I though this should be in mainline too.
> > 
> > Sorry, this was _before_ Uladzislau pointed out that you *just* moved
> > the lock that was there from the beginning. I missed that while looking
> > over the patch. Based on that I don't think that this patch is not
> > appropriate for upstream.
> > 
> Yes that is a bit messy :) Then i do not see what that patch fixes in
> mainline? Instead it will just add an extra blocking, i did not want that
> therefore used preempt_enable/disable. But, when i saw this patch i got it
> as a preparation of PREEMPT_RT merging work.

Maybe I should add some background info here as well. Currently, I am
creating an -rt tree on v5.3 for which I need this patch (or a
migrate_disable() version of it). So this is slightly independent of
the work Sebiastian is doing. Though the mainline effort of PREEMPT_RT
will hit this problem as well.

I understood Sebiastian wrong above. I thought he suggest to use the
migrate_disable() approach even for mainline. 

I supppose, one thing which would help in this discussion, is what do
you gain by using preempt_disable() instead of moving the lock up?
Do you have performance numbers which could justify the code?