linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2] 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:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:44:57 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        alexander.duyck@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 01:57:18AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 10:28:58AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:03:52AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:30:54PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
>> >> Current implementation may face a race condition.
>> >> 
>> >> For example, the potential race would be:
>> >> 
>> >>     CPU1                      CPU2
>> >>     mem_cgroup_move_account   split_huge_page_to_list
>> >>       !list_empty
>> >>                                 lock
>> >>                                 !list_empty
>> >>                                 list_del
>> >>                                 unlock
>> >>       lock
>> >>       # !list_empty might not hold anymore
>> >>       list_del_init
>> >>       unlock
>> >
>> >I don't think this particular race is possible. Both parties take page
>> >lock before messing with deferred queue, but anytway:
>> 
>> I am afraid not. Page lock is per page, while defer queue is per pgdate or
>> memcg.
>> 
>> It is possible two page in the same pgdate or memcg grab page lock
>> respectively and then access the same defer queue concurrently.
>
>Look closer on the list_empty() argument. It's list_head local to the
>page. Too different pages can be handled in parallel without any problem
>in this particular scenario. As long as we as we modify it under the lock.
>
>Said that, page lock here was somewhat accidential and I still belive we
>need to move the check under the lock anyway.
>

If my understanding is correct, you agree with my statement?

>-- 
> Kirill A. Shutemov

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me