linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: check pfmemalloc_match in slab_alloc

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

Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:13:11 +0900
From:   Ohoon Kwon <ohkwon1043@...il.com>
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        JaeSang Yoo <jsyoo5b@...il.com>,
        Wonhyuk Yang <vvghjk1234@...il.com>,
        Jiyoup Kim <lakroforce@...il.com>,
        Donghyeok Kim <dthex5d@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: check pfmemalloc_match in slab_alloc_node fastpath

Oh I was not aware of those histories.
I checked the commits, and it seems it is better to leave it
optimized(as it is now).

Thanks for your help.
Ohhoon Kwon.



On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 5:12 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 01:02:23AM +0900, Ohhoon Kwon wrote:
> > If current alloc context does not have __GFP_MEMALLOC in its gfpflags,
> > then slab objects that were previously created with __GFP_MEMALLOC
> > should not be given.
> >
> > This criteria is well kept in slab alloc slowpath:
> > When gfpflags does not contain __GFP_MEMALLOC but if per-cpu slab page
> > was allocated with __GFP_MEMALLOC, then allocator first deactivates
> > per-cpu slab page and then again allocates new slab page with the
> > current context's gfpflags.
> >
> > However, this criteria is not checked in fastpath.
> > It should also be checked in the fastpath, too.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ohhoon Kwon <ohkwon1043@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/slub.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 74d92aa4a3a2..c77cd548e106 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -3179,7 +3179,8 @@ static __always_inline void *slab_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_l
> >        * there is a suitable cpu freelist.
> >        */
> >       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) ||
> > -         unlikely(!object || !slab || !node_match(slab, node))) {
> > +         unlikely(!object || !slab || !node_match(slab, node) ||
> > +                     !pfmemalloc_match(slab, gfpflags))) {
> >               object = __slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, node, addr, c);
> >       } else {
> >               void *next_object = get_freepointer_safe(s, object);
>
> The missing pfmemalloc check in fastpath was intended.
>
> pfmemalloc check in fast did exist in Mel's commit 072bb0aa5e0629 ("mm:
> sl[au]b: add knowledge of PFMEMALLOC reserve pages").
>
> But later removed by Christoph's commit 5091b74a95d4 ("mm: slub: optimise
> the SLUB fast path to avoid pfmemalloc checks").
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Hyeonggon