linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] ipc: use GFP

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]

Message-ID: <a0f82756-3e51-d960-d901-e4cc3c7c4c19@colorfullife.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:22:13 +0200
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Cc:     Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ipc: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

Hello together,

On 4/28/20 1:14 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:47:36AM +0000, Wei Yongjun wrote:
>> The function ipc_id_alloc() is called from ipc_addid(), in which
>> a spin lock is held, so we should use GFP_ATOMIC instead.
>>
>> Fixes: de5738d1c364 ("ipc: convert ipcs_idr to XArray")
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
> I see why you think that, but it's not true.  Yes, we hold a spinlock, but
> the spinlock is in an object which is not reachable from any other CPU.

Is it really allowed that spin_lock()/spin_unlock may happen on 
different cpus?

CPU1: spin_lock()

CPU1: schedule() -> sleeps

CPU2: -> schedule() returns

CPU2: spin_unlock().


> Converting to GFP_ATOMIC is completely wrong.

What is your solution proposal?

xa_store() also gets a gfp_ flag. Thus even splitting _alloc() and 
_store() won't help

     xa_alloc(,entry=NULL,)
     new->seq = ...
     spin_lock();
     xa_store(,entry=new,GFP_KERNEL);

--

     Manfred