[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b346cafd-d8b8-57a4-c7b9-6574b256a400@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:12:14 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
william.kucharski@...cle.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
schmitzmic@...il.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
weixugc@...gle.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/8] mm: Avoid using set_page_count() in
set_page_recounted()
On 10/26/21 11:21, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> It must return the same thing, if it does not we have a bug in our
> kernel which may lead to memory corruptions and security holes.
>
> So today we have this:
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page), page); -> check ref_count is 0
> < What if something modified here? Hmm..>
> set_page_count(page, 1); -> Yet we reset it to 1.
>
> With my proposed change:
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page), page); -> check ref_count is 0
> refcnt = page_ref_inc_return(page); -> ref_count better be 1.
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(refcnt != 1, page); -> Verify that it is 1.
>
Yes, you are just repeating what the diffs say.
But it's still not good to have this function name doing something completely
different than its name indicates.
>>
>> I understand where this patchset is going, but this intermediate step is
>> not a good move.
>>
>> Also, for the overall series, if you want to change from
>> "set_page_count()" to "inc_and_verify_val_equals_one()", then the way to
>> do that is *not* to depend solely on VM_BUG*() to verify. Instead,
>> return something like -EBUSY if incrementing the value results in a
>> surprise, and let the caller decide how to handle it.
>
> Actually, -EBUSY would be OK if the problems were because we failed to
> modify refcount for some reason, but if we modified refcount and got
> an unexpected value (i.e underflow/overflow) we better report it right
> away instead of waiting for memory corruption to happen.
>
Having the caller do the BUG() or VM_BUG*() is not a significant delay.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists