linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL

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: <YLXzd95duZ3va7Te@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:44:39 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake
 MPOL_PREFERRED policy

On Mon 31-05-21 22:05:55, Feng Tang wrote:
> MPOL_LOCAL policy has been setup as a real policy, but it is still
> handled like a faked POL_PREFERRED policy with one internal
> MPOL_F_LOCAL flag bit set, and there are many places having to
> judge the real 'prefer' or the 'local' policy, which are quite
> confusing.
> 
> In current code, there are 4 cases that MPOL_LOCAL are used:
> 1. user specifies 'local' policy
> 2. user specifies 'prefer' policy, but with empty nodemask
> 3. system 'default' policy is used
> 4. 'prefer' policy + valid 'preferred' node with MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
>    flag set, and when it is 'rebind' to a nodemask which doesn't
>    contains the 'preferred' node, it will perform as 'local' policy
> 
> So make 'local' a real policy instead of a fake 'prefer' one, and
> kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit, which can greatly reduce the confusion for
> code reading.
> 
> For case 4, the logic of mpol_rebind_preferred() is confusing, as
> Michal Hocko pointed out:
> 
>  "
>  I do believe that rebinding preferred policy is just bogus and
>  it should be dropped altogether on the ground that a preference
>  is a mere hint from userspace where to start the allocation.
>  Unless I am missing something cpusets will be always authoritative
>  for the final placement. The preferred node just acts as a starting
>  point and it should be really preserved when cpusets changes.
>  Otherwise we have a very subtle behavior corner cases.
>  "
> So dump all the tricky transformation between 'prefer' and 'local',
> and just record the new nodemask of rebinding.
> 
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>

I like this very much! It simplifies a tricky code and also a very
dubious behavior. I would like to hear from others whether there might
be some userspace depending on this obscure behavior though. One never
knows...

Some more notes/questions below

[...]
> @@ -239,25 +240,19 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol,
>  		  cpuset_current_mems_allowed, node_states[N_MEMORY]);
>  
>  	VM_BUG_ON(!nodes);
> -	if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && nodes_empty(*nodes))
> -		nodes = NULL;	/* explicit local allocation */
> -	else {
> -		if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
> -			mpol_relative_nodemask(&nsc->mask2, nodes, &nsc->mask1);
> -		else
> -			nodes_and(nsc->mask2, *nodes, nsc->mask1);
>  
> -		if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
> -			pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
> -		else
> -			pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
> -						cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
> -	}
> +	if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
> +		mpol_relative_nodemask(&nsc->mask2, nodes, &nsc->mask1);
> +	else
> +		nodes_and(nsc->mask2, *nodes, nsc->mask1);

Maybe I've just got lost here but why don't you need to check for the
local policy anymore? mpol_new will take care of the MPOL_PREFERRED &&
nodes_empty special but why do we want/need all this for a local policy
at all?

>  
> -	if (nodes)
> -		ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol, &nsc->mask2);
> +	if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
> +		pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
>  	else
> -		ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol, NULL);
> +		pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
> +					cpuset_current_mems_allowed;

please use a single line. This is just harder to read. You will cross
the line limit but readability should be preferred here.

[...]

I haven't spotted anything else.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs