linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED

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, 31 Jan 2024 11:35:53 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, honggyu.kim@...com,
	rakie.kim@...com, hyeongtak.ji@...com, mhocko@...nel.org,
	vtavarespetr@...ron.com, jgroves@...ron.com,
	ravis.opensrc@...ron.com, sthanneeru@...ron.com,
	emirakhur@...ron.com, Hasan.Maruf@....com, seungjun.ha@...sung.com,
	hannes@...xchg.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru.opensrc@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
 for weighted interleaving

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 05:19:51PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:43:12PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com> writes:
> >> >  
> >> > +static unsigned int weighted_interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	unsigned int node = current->il_prev;
> >> > +
> >> > +	if (!current->il_weight || !node_isset(node, policy->nodes)) {
> >> > +		node = next_node_in(node, policy->nodes);
> >> > +		/* can only happen if nodemask is being rebound */
> >> > +		if (node == MAX_NUMNODES)
> >> > +			return node;
> >> 
> >> I feel a little unsafe to read policy->nodes at same time of writing in
> >> rebound.  Is it better to use a seqlock to guarantee its consistency?
> >> It's unnecessary to be a part of this series though.
> >> 
> >
> > I think this is handled already? It is definitely an explicit race
> > condition that is documented elsewhere:
> >
> > /*
> >  * mpol_rebind_policy - Migrate a policy to a different set of nodes
> >  *
> >  * Per-vma policies are protected by mmap_lock. Allocations using per-task
> >  * policies are protected by task->mems_allowed_seq to prevent a premature
> >  * OOM/allocation failure due to parallel nodemask modification.
> >  */
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out!
> 
> If we use task->mems_allowed_seq reader side in
> weighted_interleave_nodes() we can guarantee the consistency of
> policy->nodes.  That may be not deserved, because it's not a big deal to
> allocate 1 page in a wrong node.
> 
> It makes more sense to do that in
> alloc_pages_bulk_array_weighted_interleave(), because a lot of pages may
> be allocated there.
>

That's probably worth just adding now, I'll do it and squash the style
updates into the branch.  Sorry Andrew, I guess 1 last version is
inbound :]

I'll pick up the reviewed tags along the way.

~Gregory