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:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:38:08 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     hannes@...xchg.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 Tue 07-01-20 09:22:41, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:23:45AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 03-01-20 22:34:07, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
> >> Current implementation may face a race condition.
> >
> >Please always make sure to describe the effect of the change. Why a racy
> >list_empty check matters?
> >
> 
> Hmm... access the list without proper lock leads to many bad behaviors.

My point is that the changelog should describe that bad behavior.

> For example, if we grab the lock after checking list_empty, the page may
> already be removed from list in split_huge_page_list. And then list_del_init
> would trigger bug.

And how does list_empty check under the lock guarantee that the page is
on the deferred list?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs