linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] hugetlb: add per-hstate mutex to synchronize user adjustments

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:57:14 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] hugetlb: add per-hstate mutex to synchronize user
 adjustments

On 3/22/21 6:59 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 19-03-21 15:42:02, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> The number of hugetlb pages can be adjusted by writing to the
>> sysps/proc files nr_hugepages, nr_hugepages_mempolicy or
>> nr_overcommit_hugepages.  There is nothing to prevent two
>> concurrent modifications via these files.  The underlying routine
>> set_max_huge_pages() makes assumptions that only one occurrence is
>> running at a time.  Specifically, alloc_pool_huge_page uses a
>> hstate specific variable without any synchronization.
> 
> From the above it is not really clear whether the unsynchronized nature
> of set_max_huge_pages is really a problem or a mere annoynce. I suspect
> the later because counters are properly synchronized with the
> hugetlb_lock. It would be great to clarify that.
>  

It is a problem and an annoyance.

The problem is that alloc_pool_huge_page -> for_each_node_mask_to_alloc is
called after dropping the hugetlb lock.  for_each_node_mask_to_alloc
uses the helper hstate_next_node_to_alloc which uses and modifies
h->next_nid_to_alloc.  Worst case would be two instances of set_max_huge_pages
trying to allocate pages on different sets of nodes.  Pages could get
allocated on the wrong nodes.

I really doubt this problem has ever been experienced in practice.
However, when looking at the code in was a real annoyance. :)

I'll update the commit message to be more clear.
-- 
Mike Kravetz