linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-next v2] mm/memcg: Properly handle memcg_stock access for PREEMPT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:37:20 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next v2] mm/memcg: Properly handle memcg_stock access for
 PREEMPT_RT


On 12/10/21 11:34, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-12-10 11:29:31 [-0500], Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 08:01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-09 21:52:28 [-0500], Waiman Long wrote:
>>> …
>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> …
>>>> @@ -2210,7 +2211,7 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>    	struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock;
>>>>    	unsigned long flags;
>>>> -	local_irq_save(flags);
>>>> +	local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.lock, flags);
>>> Why is this one using the lock? It isn't accessing irq_obj, right?
>> Well, the lock isn't just for irq_obj. It protects the whole memcg_stock
>> structure which include irq_obj. Sometimes, data in irq_obj (or task_obj)
>> will get transfer to nr_pages and vice versa. So it is easier to use one
>> single lock for the whole thing.
> This needs way better documentation what protects what any why.
> I don't like the quick slapping for RT only usage without any kind of
> explanation. Once you think you know it is irq_obj only you end up here
> where you have the lock again for no obvious reason.

Sure, I will update the patch description and add comments to document 
that. Let's see what other feedback I have before I make the update.

Cheers,
Longman