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: <e83100ae-d687-3b4e-8256-aee242191ada@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:43:37 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     js1304@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        kernel-team@....com, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for v5.9] mm/page_alloc: handle a missing case for
 memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs


On 8/25/20 6:59 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> 
> memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs can be used to skip page allocation
> on CMA area, but, there is a missing case and the page on CMA area could
> be allocated even if APIs are used. This patch handles this case to fix
> the potential issue.
> 
> Missing case is an allocation from the pcplist. MIGRATE_MOVABLE pcplist
> could have the pages on CMA area so we need to skip it if ALLOC_CMA isn't
> specified.
> 
> This patch implements this behaviour by checking allocated page from
> the pcplist rather than skipping an allocation from the pcplist entirely.
> Skipping the pcplist entirely would result in a mismatch between watermark
> check and actual page allocation.

Are you sure? I think a mismatch exists already. Pages can be on the pcplist but
they are not considered as free in the watermark check. So passing watermark
check means there should be also pages on free lists. So skipping pcplists would
be safe, no?

> And, it requires to break current code
> layering that order-0 page is always handled by the pcplist. I'd prefer
> to avoid it so this patch uses different way to skip CMA page allocation
> from the pcplist.

Well it would be much simpler and won't affect most of allocations. Better than
flushing pcplists IMHO.

Something like this?
----8<----
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 0e2bab486fea..15787ffb1708 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3361,7 +3361,10 @@ struct page *rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
        unsigned long flags;
        struct page *page;
 
-       if (likely(order == 0)) {
+       if (likely(order == 0) &&
+                       (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) ||
+                        migratetype != MIGRATE_MOVABLE ||
+                        alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA)) {
                page = rmqueue_pcplist(preferred_zone, zone, gfp_flags,
                                        migratetype, alloc_flags);
                goto out;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ