linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] mm/thp: fix __split_huge_pmd

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:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wang Yugui <wangyugui@...-tech.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Jue Wang <juew@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] mm/thp: fix __split_huge_pmd_locked() on shmem
 migration entry

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:23 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:05 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > The point here (see commit message above) is that some unrelated pmd
> > migration entry could pass the is_huge_zero_pmd() test, which rushes
> > off to use pmd_page() without even checking pmd_present() first.  And
> > most of its users have, one way or another, checked pmd_present() first;
> > but this place and a couple of others had not.
> 
> Thanks for the elaboration. Wondering whether we'd better add some
> comments in the code? Someone may submit a fix patch by visual
> inspection in the future due to missing these points.

I don't really want to add a comment on this, there in zap_huge_pmd():
I think it would be too much of a distraction from that dense code
sequence.  And the comment will be more obvious in the commit message,
once I split these is_huge_zero_pmd() fixes off from
__split_huge_pmd_locked() as Kirill asked.

But... now I think I'll scrap these parts of the patch, and instead
just add a pmd_present() check into is_huge_zero_pmd() itself.
pmd_present() is quick, but pmd_page() may not be: I may convert it
to use a __read_only huge_pmd_pfn, or may not: I'll see how that goes.

Hugh