| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:44:04 +0800
From: "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...wei.com>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>,
"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
CC: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
在 2020/12/23 8:11, Vitaly Wool 写道:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 22:06 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
> <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vitaly Wool [mailto:vitaly.wool@...sulko.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:44 PM
>>> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
>>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>; Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>; Mike
>>> Galbraith <efault@....de>; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; linux-mm
>>> <linux-mm@...ck.org>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>;
>>> NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>; Sergey Senozhatsky
>>> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>; Andrew Morton
>>> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; tiantao (H) <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 03:11 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
>>> <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 3:03 PM
>>>>> To: 'Vitaly Wool' <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
>>>>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>; Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>;
>>> Mike
>>>>> Galbraith <efault@....de>; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; linux-mm
>>>>> <linux-mm@...ck.org>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>;
>>>>> NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>; Sergey Senozhatsky
>>>>> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>; Andrew Morton
>>>>> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; tiantao (H) <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still not convinced. Will kmap what, src? At this point src might
>>> become
>>>>> just a bogus pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the memory is still there, we can kmap it by its page struct.
>>> But
>>>>> if
>>>>> it is not there anymore, we have no way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why couldn't the object have been moved somewhere else (due to the compaction
>>>>> mechanism for instance)
>>>>>> at the time DMA kicks in?
>>>>> So zs_map_object() will guarantee the src won't be moved by holding those
>>>>> preemption-disabled lock?
>>>>> If so, it seems we have to drop the MOVABLE gfp in zswap for zsmalloc case?
>>>>>
>>>> Or we can do get_page() to avoid the movement of the page.
>>>
>>> I would like to discuss this more in zswap context than zsmalloc's.
>>> Since zsmalloc does not implement reclaim callback, using it in zswap
>>> is a corner case anyway.
>> I see. But it seems we still need a solution for the compatibility
>> of zsmalloc and zswap? this will require change in either zsmalloc
>> or zswap.
>> or do you want to make zswap depend on !ZSMALLOC?
> No, I really don't think we should go that far. What if we add a flag
> to zpool, named like "can_sleep_mapped", and have it set for
> zbud/z3fold?
> Then zswap could go the current path if the flag is set; and if it's
> not set, and mutex_trylock fails, copy data from src to a temporary
> buffer, then unmap the handle, take the mutex, process the buffer
> instead of src. Not the nicest thing to do but at least it won't break
> anything.
write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?
--- a/mm/zswap.c
+++ b/mm/zswap.c
@@ -1235,7 +1235,7 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type,
pgoff_t offset,
struct zswap_entry *entry;
struct scatterlist input, output;
struct crypto_acomp_ctx *acomp_ctx;
- u8 *src, *dst;
+ u8 *src, *dst, *tmp;
unsigned int dlen;
int ret;
@@ -1262,16 +1262,26 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type,
pgoff_t offset,
if (zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool))
src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);
+ if (!zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool) &&
!mutex_trylock(acomp_ctx->mutex)) {
+ tmp = kmemdup(src, entry->length, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle); ???
+ if (!tmp)
+ goto freeentry;
+ }
acomp_ctx = raw_cpu_ptr(entry->pool->acomp_ctx);
mutex_lock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
- sg_init_one(&input, src, entry->length);
+ sg_init_one(&input, zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool) ?
src : tmp, entry->length);
sg_init_table(&output, 1);
sg_set_page(&output, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output,
entry->length, dlen);
ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx->req),
&acomp_ctx->wait);
mutex_unlock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
- zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
+ if (zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool))
+ zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
+ else
+ kfree(tmp);
+
--- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
@@ -440,6 +440,7 @@ static u64 zs_zpool_total_size(void *pool)
static struct zpool_driver zs_zpool_driver = {
.type = "zsmalloc",
+ .sleep_mapped = false,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
.create = zs_zpool_create,
.destroy = zs_zpool_destroy,
>
> ~Vitaly
>
>>> zswap, on the other hand, may be dealing with some new backends in
>>> future which have more chances to become mainstream. Imagine typical
>>> NUMA-like cases, i. e. a zswap pool allocated in some kind SRAM, or in
>>> unused video memory. In such a case if you try to use a pointer to an
>>> invalidated zpool mapping, you are on the way to thrash the system.
>>> So: no assumptions that the zswap pool is in regular linear RAM should
>>> be made.
>>>
>>> ~Vitaly
>> Thanks
>> Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists