linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix missing handler 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]

Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 10:36:18 +0800
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     akinobu.mita@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix missing handler for __GFP_NOWARN



On 2022/5/11 10:32 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:19:48 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> ,,,
>>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
>>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
>>>> @@ -35,6 +35,17 @@ struct folio_batch;
>>>>    /* Do not use these with a slab allocator */
>>>>    #define GFP_SLAB_BUG_MASK (__GFP_DMA32|__GFP_HIGHMEM|~__GFP_BITS_MASK)
>>>>    
>>>> +#define WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(cond, gfp)	({				\
>>>> +	static bool __section(".data.once") __warned;			\
>>>> +	int __ret_warn_once = !!(cond);					\
>>>> +									\
>>>> +	if (unlikely(!(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN) && __ret_warn_once && !__warned)) { \
>>>> +		__warned = true;					\
>>>> +		WARN_ON(1);						\
>>>> +	}								\
>>>> +	unlikely(__ret_warn_once);					\
>>>> +})
>>>
>>> I don't think WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP is a good name for this.  But
>>> WARN_ON_ONCE_IF_NOT_GFP_NOWARN is too long :(
>>>
>>> WARN_ON_ONCE_NOWARN might be better.  No strong opinion here, really.
>>
>> I've thought about WARN_ON_ONCE_NOWARN, but I feel a little weird
>> putting 'WARN' and 'NOWARN' together, how about WARN_ON_ONCE_IF_ALLOWED?
> 
> I dunno.  WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP isn't too bad I suppose.  Add a comment over
> the definition explaining it?

OK, I will add a comment to it.

> 
>>>
>>>> @@ -4902,8 +4906,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>>>>    	 * We also sanity check to catch abuse of atomic reserves being used by
>>>>    	 * callers that are not in atomic context.
>>>>    	 */
>>>> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_mask & (__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)) ==
>>>> -				(__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)))
>>>> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP((gfp_mask & (__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)) ==
>>>> +				(__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM), gfp_mask))
>>>>    		gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_ATOMIC;
>>>>    
>>>>    retry_cpuset:
>>>
>>> I dropped this hunk - Neil's "mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC"
>>> (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/163712397076.13692.4727608274002939094@noble.neil.brown.name)
>>> deleted this code.
>>>
>>
>> This series is based on v5.18-rc5, I will rebase it to the latest next
>> branch and check if there are any missing WARN_ON_ONCEs that are not
>> being handled.
> 
> Against git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm branch
> mm-unstable, please.  That ends up in linux-next, with a delay.

OK, will do.

-- 
Thanks,
Qi