linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker

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: <Ya4PGJZL8tSb/Prj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:24:40 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        shy828301@...il.com, guro@...com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, raquini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker_info on
 offlined nodes

On Mon 06-12-21 16:19:12, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 06.12.2021 13:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> This doesn't seen complete. Slab shrinkers are used in the reclaim
> >> context. Previously offline nodes could be onlined later and this would
> >> lead to NULL ptr because there is no hook to allocate new shrinker
> >> infos. This would be also really impractical because this would have to
> >> update all existing memcgs...
> > 
> > Instead of going through the trouble of updating...
> > 
> > ...  maybe just keep for_each_node() and check if the target node is
> > offline. If it's offline, just allocate from the first online node.
> > After all, we're not using __GFP_THISNODE, so there are no guarantees
> > either way ...
> 
> Hm, can't we add shrinker maps allocation to __try_online_node() in addition
> to this patch? 

Either that or through hotplug notifier (which would be a better
solution). But allocating a new shrinker map for each memcg would have
to be done as has been mentioned earlier.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs