linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v4] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with printk()

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:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:42:10 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with
 printk()

On 17.01.20 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 17-01-20 10:25:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.01.20 09:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 17-01-20 09:51:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 17.01.20 03:21, Qian Cai wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Even though has_unmovable_pages doesn't hold any reference to the
>>>>> returned page this should be reasonably safe for the purpose of
>>>>> reporting the page (dump_page) because it cannot be hotremoved. The
>>>>
>>>> This is only true in the context of memory unplug, but not in the
>>>> context of is_mem_section_removable()-> is_pageblock_removable_nolock().
>>>
>>> Well, the above should hold for that path as well AFAICS. If the page is
>>> unmovable then a racing hotplug cannot remove it, right? Or do you
>>> consider a temporary unmovability to be a problem?
>>
>> Somebody could test /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryX/removable. While
>> returning the unmovable page, it could become movable and
>> offlining+removing could succeed.
> 
> Doesn't this path use device lock or something? If not than the new code
> is not more racy then the existing one. Just look at
> is_pageblock_removable_nolock and how it dereferences struct page
> (page_zonenum in  page_zone.)
> 

AFAIK no device lock, no device hotplug lock, no memory hotplug lock. I
think it holds a reference to the device and to the kernelfs node. But
AFAIK that does not block removal of offlining/memory, just when the
objects get freed.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb