linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP

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: <20211019110649.GA1933@pc638.lan>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:06:49 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> Dave Chinner has mentioned that some of the xfs code would benefit from
> kvmalloc support for __GFP_NOFAIL because they have allocations that
> cannot fail and they do not fit into a single page.
> 
> The larg part of the vmalloc implementation already complies with the
> given gfp flags so there is no work for those to be done. The area
> and page table allocations are an exception to that. Implement a retry
> loop for those.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 7455c89598d3..3a5a178295d1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2941,8 +2941,10 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  	else if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS | __GFP_IO)))
>  		flags = memalloc_noio_save();
>  
> -	ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
> +	do {
> +		ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
>  			page_shift);
> +	} while ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (ret < 0));
>  
>  	if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS | __GFP_IO)) == __GFP_IO)
>  		memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
> @@ -3032,6 +3034,8 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>  		warn_alloc(gfp_mask, NULL,
>  			"vmalloc error: size %lu, vm_struct allocation failed",
>  			real_size);
> +		if (gfp_mask && __GFP_NOFAIL)
> +			goto again;
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 
I have checked the vmap code how it aligns with the __GFP_NOFAIL flag.
To me it looks correct from functional point of view.

There is one place though it is kasan_populate_vmalloc_pte(). It does
not use gfp_mask, instead it directly deals with GFP_KERNEL for its
internal purpose. If it fails the code will end up in loping in the
__vmalloc_node_range().

I am not sure how it is important to pass __GFP_NOFAIL into KASAN code.

Any thoughts about it?

--
Vlad Rezki