linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/40] mm: introduce __GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT flag to selectively prevent slabobj

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: <CAJuCfpGA9SMwyQ44XHRHHVf32MPu4o6wy1Q6H=AfJy61Ez-06Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 May 2023 11:33:15 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, corbet@....net,
        void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org,
        tj@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev, rppt@...nel.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
        yosryahmed@...gle.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
        glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/40] mm: introduce __GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT flag to selectively
 prevent slabobj_ext creation

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:50 AM Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>
> On Mon,  1 May 2023 09:54:19 -0700
> Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > Introduce __GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT flag in order to prevent recursive allocations
> > when allocating slabobj_ext on a slab.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/gfp_types.h | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp_types.h b/include/linux/gfp_types.h
> > index 6583a58670c5..aab1959130f9 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp_types.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp_types.h
> > @@ -53,8 +53,13 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise gfp_t;
> >  #define ___GFP_SKIP_ZERO     0
> >  #define ___GFP_SKIP_KASAN    0
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SLAB_OBJ_EXT
> > +#define ___GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT       0x4000000u
> > +#else
> > +#define ___GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT       0
> > +#endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > -#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP     0x4000000u
> > +#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP     0x8000000u
>
> So now we have two flags that depend on config options, but the first
> one is always allocated in fact. I wonder if you could use an enum to
> let the compiler allocate bits. Something similar to what Muchun Song
> did with section flags.
>
> See commit ed7802dd48f7a507213cbb95bb4c6f1fe134eb5d for reference.

Thanks for the reference. I'll take a closer look and will try to clean it up.

>
> >  #else
> >  #define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP     0
> >  #endif
> > @@ -99,12 +104,15 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise gfp_t;
> >   * node with no fallbacks or placement policy enforcements.
> >   *
> >   * %__GFP_ACCOUNT causes the allocation to be accounted to kmemcg.
> > + *
> > + * %__GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT causes slab allocation to have no object
> > extension. */
> >  #define __GFP_RECLAIMABLE ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_RECLAIMABLE)
> >  #define __GFP_WRITE  ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_WRITE)
> >  #define __GFP_HARDWALL   ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_HARDWALL)
> >  #define __GFP_THISNODE       ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_THISNODE)
> >  #define __GFP_ACCOUNT        ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_ACCOUNT)
> > +#define __GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT   ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT)
> >
> >  /**
> >   * DOC: Watermark modifiers
> > @@ -249,7 +257,7 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise gfp_t;
> >  #define __GFP_NOLOCKDEP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> >
> >  /* Room for N __GFP_FOO bits */
> > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (26 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (27 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
>
> If the above suggestion is implemented, this could be changed to
> something like __GFP_LAST_BIT (the enum's last identifier).

Ack.

Thanks for reviewing!
Suren.

>
> Petr T