linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] disable pcplists during memory offline

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: <bc582c01-7904-cb09-0f95-b170cb33c958@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:15:58 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] disable pcplists during memory offline

On 22.09.20 16:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> As per the discussions [1] [2] this is an attempt to implement David's
> suggestion that page isolation should disable pcplists to avoid races with page
> freeing in progress. This is done without extra checks in fast paths, as
> explained in Patch 9. The repeated draining done by [2] is then no longer
> needed. Previous version (RFC) is at [3].
> 
> The RFC tried to hide pcplists disabling/enabling into page isolation, but it
> wasn't completely possible, as memory offline does not unisolation. Michal
> suggested an explicit API in [4] so that's the current implementation and it
> seems indeed nicer.
> 
> Once we accept that page isolation users need to do explicit actions around it
> depending on the needed guarantees, we can also IMHO accept that the current
> pcplist draining can be also done by the callers, which is more effective.
> After all, there are only two users of page isolation. So patch 7 does
> effectively the same thing as Pavel proposed in [5], and patches 8-9 implement
> stronger guarantees only for memory offline. If CMA decides to opt-in to the
> stronger guarantee, it's easy to do so.
> 
> Patches 1-6 are preparatory cleanups for pcplist disabling.
> 
> Patchset was briefly tested in QEMU so that memory online/offline works, but
> I haven't done a stress test that would prove the race fixed by [2] is
> eliminated.
> 
> Note that patch 9 could be avoided if we instead adjusted page freeing in shown
> in [6], but I believe the current implementation of disabling pcplists is not
> too much complex, so I would prefer this instead of adding new checks and
> longer irq-disabled section into page freeing hotpaths.

Haven't looked into the details (yet), but I assume we can add some flag
to alloc_contig_range(), to also disable+flush+enable. (or let the
caller do it, for example on a bunch of bulk allocations - TBD).

Result of patch #9 looks quite clean.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb