linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zram: Allow backing device to be assigned after init

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:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:18:38 -0400
From:   Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: Allow backing device to be assigned after init

> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > > > zram device is initialized.
> > > > >
> > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > >               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >
> > > > >       down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > -     if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > -             pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > > > -             err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > +     if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > > > +             pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > > > +             err = -EEXIST;
> > > > >               goto out;
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brian,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Minchan,
> > >
> > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > > > to check some feature on the fly.
> > > >
> > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
> > >
> > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
> >
> > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
> > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
> > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
> >
> > zram_bvec_rw
> >   zram_bvec_write
> >     if (comp_len >= huge_class)
> >         zs_page_writeback
> >             down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
> >
> > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
> > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.

(sorry for the top post before)

Hi Minchan,
I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a
reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode
before doing any writeback. Does that seem right?

Brian