linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: don't putback unisolated page

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, 6 Sep 2021 19:32:30 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <vbabka@...e.cz>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: don't putback unisolated page

On 2021/9/6 17:40, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.09.21 11:18, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> If __isolate_free_page() failed, due to zone watermark check, the page is
>> still on the free list. But this page will be put back to free list again
>> via __putback_isolated_page() now. This may trigger page->flags checks in
>> __free_one_page() if PageReported is set. Or we will corrupt the free list
>> because list_add() will be called for pages already on another list.
>>
>> Fixes: 3c605096d315 ("mm/page_alloc: restrict max order of merging on isolated pageblock")
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/page_isolation.c | 6 ++----
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> index 9bb562d5d194..7d70d772525c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> @@ -93,10 +93,8 @@ static void unset_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, unsigned migratetype)
>>               buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, order);
>>               buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
>>   -            if (!is_migrate_isolate_page(buddy)) {
>> -                __isolate_free_page(page, order);
>> -                isolated_page = true;
>> -            }
>> +            if (!is_migrate_isolate_page(buddy))
>> +                isolated_page = !!__isolate_free_page(page, order);
>>           }
>>       }
>>  
> 
> Shouldn't we much rather force to ignore watermarks here and make sure __isolate_free_page() never fails?

It seems it is not easy to force to ignore watermarks here. And it's not a problem
if __isolate_free_page() fails because we can do move_freepages_block() anyway.
What do you think? Many thanks.

>