linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: don't call should_failslab() for !CONFIG

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:50:11 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Howard McLauchlan <hmclauchlan@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't call should_failslab() for !CONFIG_FAILSLAB

On 10/7/21 9:32 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/5/21 17:31, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Allocations can be a very hot path, and this out-of-line function
>> call is noticeable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> 
> It used to be inline b4 (hi, Konstantin!) and then was converted to be like
> this intentionally :/
> 
> See 4f6923fbb352 ("mm: make should_failslab always available for fault
> injection")
> 
> And now also kernel/bpf/verifier.c contains:
> BTF_ID(func, should_failslab)
> 
> I think either your or Andrew's version will break this BTF_ID thing, at the
> very least.
> 
> But I do strongly agree that putting unconditionally a non-inline call into
> slab allocator fastpath sucks. Can we make it so that bpf can only do these
> overrides when CONFIG_FAILSLAB is enabled?
> I don't know, perhaps putting this BTF_ID() in #ifdef as well, or providing
> a dummy that is always available (so that nothing breaks), but doesn't
> actually affect slab_pre_alloc_hook() unless CONFIG_FAILSLAB has been enabled?

That seems to be the right approach, limiting it on it actually being enabled
and a function call.

-- 
Jens Axboe