linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcuscale: add kfree

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: <20210204141413.GB1904@pc638.lan>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:14:13 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcuscale: add kfree_rcu() single-argument scale test

Hello, Paul.

> To stress and test a single argument of kfree_rcu() call, we
> should to have a special coverage for it. We used to have it
> in the test-suite related to vmalloc stressing. The reason is
> the rcuscale is a correct place for RCU related things.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> index 06491d5530db..e17745a155f9 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ torture_param(bool, shutdown, RCUSCALE_SHUTDOWN,
>  torture_param(int, verbose, 1, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s");
>  torture_param(int, writer_holdoff, 0, "Holdoff (us) between GPs, zero to disable");
>  torture_param(int, kfree_rcu_test, 0, "Do we run a kfree_rcu() scale test?");
> +torture_param(int, kfree_rcu_test_single, 0, "Do we run a kfree_rcu() single-argument scale test?");
>  torture_param(int, kfree_mult, 1, "Multiple of kfree_obj size to allocate.");
>  
>  static char *scale_type = "rcu";
> @@ -667,10 +668,14 @@ kfree_scale_thread(void *arg)
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
>  			alloc_ptr = kmalloc(kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
>  			if (!alloc_ptr)
>  				return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -			kfree_rcu(alloc_ptr, rh);
> +			if (kfree_rcu_test_single)
> +				kfree_rcu(alloc_ptr);
> +			else
> +				kfree_rcu(alloc_ptr, rh);
>  		}
>  
>  		cond_resched();
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>
What is about this change? Do you have any concern or comments?

--
Vlad Rezki