linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when isolating hugetlb pages

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:31:02 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, osalvador@...e.de, vbabka@...e.cz,
        william.lam@...edance.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: fix the possible deadlock when
 isolating hugetlb pages

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:08:38 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> I suspect holding the lru lock when calling isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page was
> not considered.  However, I wonder if this can really happen in practice?
> 
> Before the code below, there is this:
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * Periodically drop the lock (if held) regardless of its
> 		 * contention, to give chance to IRQs. Abort completely if
> 		 * a fatal signal is pending.
> 		 */
> 		if (!(low_pfn % COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
> 			if (locked) {
> 				unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked, flags);
> 				locked = NULL;
> 			}
> 			...
> 		}
> 
> It would seem that the pfn of a hugetlb page would always be a multiple of
> COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX so we would drop the lock.  However, I am not sure if
> that is ALWAYS true and would prefer something like the code you suggested.
> 
> Did you actually see this deadlock in practice?

Presumably the lack of lockdep reports about this tells us something?