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, 15 Nov 2023 03:11:29 +0000
From:   xu <xu.xin.sc@...il.com>
To:     david@...hat.com
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
        jiang.xuexin@....com.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, ran.xiaokai@....com.cn, wang.yong12@....com.cn,
        xu.xin.sc@...il.com, xu.xin16@....com.cn, yang.yang29@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksm: delay the check of splitting compound pages

>> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
>> index 7efcc68ccc6e..c952fe5d9e43 100644
>> --- a/mm/ksm.c
>> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
>> @@ -2229,24 +2229,10 @@ static void cmp_and_merge_page(struct page *page, struct ksm_rmap_item *rmap_ite
>>   	tree_rmap_item =
>>   		unstable_tree_search_insert(rmap_item, page, &tree_page);
>>   	if (tree_rmap_item) {
>> -		bool split;
>> -
>>   		kpage = try_to_merge_two_pages(rmap_item, page,
>>   						tree_rmap_item, tree_page);
>> -		/*
>> -		 * If both pages we tried to merge belong to the same compound
>> -		 * page, then we actually ended up increasing the reference
>> -		 * count of the same compound page twice, and split_huge_page
>> -		 * failed.
>> -		 * Here we set a flag if that happened, and we use it later to
>> -		 * try split_huge_page again. Since we call put_page right
>> -		 * afterwards, the reference count will be correct and
>> -		 * split_huge_page should succeed.
>> -		 */
>
>I'm curious, why can't we detect that ahead of time and keep only a 
>single reference? Why do we need the backup code? Anything I am missing?

I don't know the original reason, better ask Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>. 
Maybe because doing detection that ahead of time will break several funtions' semantic,
such as try_to_merge_two_pages(), try_to_merge_with_ksm_page() and try_to_merge_one_page()

Adding the backup code don't change the old code and fixing the old problem, it's good.

>
>> -		split = PageTransCompound(page)
>> -			&& compound_head(page) == compound_head(tree_page);
>> -		put_page(tree_page);
>>   		if (kpage) {
>> +			put_page(tree_page);
>>   			/*
>>   			 * The pages were successfully merged: insert new
>>   			 * node in the stable tree and add both rmap_items.
>> @@ -2271,7 +2257,25 @@ static void cmp_and_merge_page(struct page *page, struct ksm_rmap_item *rmap_ite
>>   				break_cow(tree_rmap_item);
>>   				break_cow(rmap_item);
>>   			}
>> -		} else if (split) {
>> +		} else {
>> +			bool split;
>> +			/*
>> +			 * If both pages we tried to merge belong to the same compound
>> +			 * page, then we actually ended up increasing the reference
>> +			 * count of the same compound page twice, and split_huge_page
>> +			 * failed.
>> +			 * Here we set a flag if that happened, and we use it later to
>> +			 * try split_huge_page again. Since we call put_page right
>> +			 * afterwards, the reference count will be correct and
>> +			 * split_huge_page should succeed.
>> +			 */
>> +
>> +			split = PageTransCompound(page)
>> +				&& compound_head(page) == compound_head(tree_page);
>
>Would
>
>split = page_folio(page) == page_folio(tree_page);
>
>do the trick? No need to mess with compound pages.

In terms of function correctness, it should work correctly because here 'page' and 'tree_page' are never
the same page, which is guaranteed by unstable_tree_search_insert(). But it's not very intuitive, maybe
ww need to add some comment.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists