linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer 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]

Date:   Sat, 4 Jan 2020 07:39:25 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:29:06AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Wei Yang wrote:
>
>> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
>> Current implementation may face a race condition.
>> 
>> Fixes: 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware")
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> I notice the difference during code reading and just confused about the
>> difference. No specific test is done since limited knowledge about cgroup.
>> 
>> Maybe I miss something important?
>
>The check for !list_empty(page_deferred_list(page)) must certainly be 
>serialized with doing list_del_init(page_deferred_list(page)).
>

Hi David

Would you mind giving more information? You mean list_empty and list_del_init
is atomic?

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me