linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for MPOL_PREFERRED

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: <Yurj0sOXgGf40AJE@feng-clx>
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 05:08:34 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "bwidawsk@...nel.org" <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for
 MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY case

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:56:44PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 04-08-22 04:43:06, Feng Tang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:28:59PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > +struct mempolicy *policy_mbind_nodemask(gfp_t gfp)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMPOLICY
> > > +	struct mempolicy *mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * only enforce MBIND which overlaps with cpuset policy (from policy_nodemask)
> > > +	 * specifically for hugetlb case
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (mpol->mode == MPOL_BIND &&
> > > +		(apply_policy_zone(mpol, gfp_zone(gfp)) &&
> > > +		 cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->nodes))
> > > +		return &mpol->nodes;
> > > +#endif
> > > +	return NULL;
> > 
> > I saw the logic is not changed, and it confused me that if there is
> > no qualified node, it will still return NULL which effectively equals
> > node_states[N_MEMORY], while I think it should return a all zero
> > nodemasks.
> 
> This is a separate thing and I have to admit that the existing code is
> rather non-intuitive or even broken. I guess we do not care all that
> much because MBIND with completely non-overlapping cpusets is just a
> broken configuration. I am not sure this case is interesting or even
> supported.

Fair enough, and moving the policy_mbind_nodemask() into hugetlb.c for
one single caller make it much less severe.

Do we still need the other nodemask API I proposed earlier which has
no parameter of gfp_flag, and used for __nr_hugepages_store_common?

Thanks,
Feng


> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>