linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab

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: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2206081417370.465021@gentwo.de>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:23:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>
To:     Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        penberg@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and
 slab_free

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, Rongwei Wang wrote:

> If available, I think document the issue and warn this incorrect behavior is
> OK. But it still prints a large amount of confusing messages, and disturbs us?

Correct it would be great if you could fix this in a way that does not
impact performance.

> > are current operations on the slab being validated.
> And I am trying to fix it in following way. In a short, these changes only
> works under the slub debug mode, and not affects the normal mode (I'm not
> sure). It looks not elegant enough. And if all approve of this way, I can
> submit the next version.


>
> Anyway, thanks for your time:).
> -wrw
>
> @@ -3304,7 +3300,7 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s,
struct
> slab *slab,
>
>  {
>         void *prior;
> -       int was_frozen;
> +       int was_frozen, to_take_off = 0;
>         struct slab new;

to_take_off has the role of !n ? Why is that needed?

> -       do {
> -               if (unlikely(n)) {
> +               spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> +               ret = free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr);

Ok so the idea is to take the lock only if kmem_cache_debug. That looks
ok. But it still adds a number of new branches etc to the free loop.

Some performance tests would be useful.