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  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, 11 Aug 2020 09:29:38 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <liu.xiang6@....com.cn>,
        "open list:SLAB ALLOCATOR" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: remove useless kmem_cache_debug



On 2020/8/11 3:44, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, wuyun.wu@...wei.com wrote:
> 
>> From: Abel Wu <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
>>
>> The commit below is incomplete, as it didn't handle the add_full() part.
>> commit a4d3f8916c65 ("slub: remove useless kmem_cache_debug() before remove_full()")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/slub.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index fe81773..0b021b7 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -2182,7 +2182,8 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>>  		}
>>  	} else {
>>  		m = M_FULL;
>> -		if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && !lock) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
>> +		if (!lock) {
>>  			lock = 1;
>>  			/*
>>  			 * This also ensures that the scanning of full
>> @@ -2191,6 +2192,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>>  			 */
>>  			spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
>>  		}
>> +#endif
>>  	}
>>
>>  	if (l != m) {
> 
> This should be functionally safe, I'm wonder if it would make sense to 
> only check for SLAB_STORE_USER here instead of kmem_cache_debug(), 
> however, since that should be the only context in which we need the 
> list_lock for add_full()?  It seems more explicit.
> .
> 
Yes, checking for SLAB_STORE_USER here can also get rid of noising macros.
I will resend the patch later.

Thanks,
	Abel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists