linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: slub: only warn once when allocating slab obj extensions fails

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: <CAJuCfpF4dar7p+wMucP8uWn23U5kzDCdSw48nZX=a=ei9ZSZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 08:14:35 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hannes@...xchg.org, vlad.wing@...il.com, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...a.com, vbabka@...e.cz, cl@...two.org, rientjes@...gle.com, 
	roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: slub: only warn once when allocating slab obj
 extensions fails

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 7:18 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 02:42:09PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 20/05/2025 14:34, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:25:47PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> > >> In memory bound systems, a large number of warnings for failing this
> > >> allocation repeatedly may mask any real issues in the system
> > >> during memory pressure being reported in dmesg. Change this to
> > >> WARN_ONCE.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> > >> Reported-by: Vlad Poenaru <vlad.wing@...il.com>
> > >> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/17fab2d6-5a74-4573-bcc3-b75951508f0a@gmail.com/
> > >> ---
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please Cc SLAB ALLOCATOR folks in MAINTAINERS on patches that touch
> > > slab code ;)
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for adding them to CC! I was just thinking of this as a memory
> > allocation profiling issue and added the maintainers for it,
> > but should have added slab maintainers as well.
> >
> >
> > >>  mm/slub.c | 2 +-
> > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > >> index bf43c403ead2..97cb3d9e8d00 100644
> > >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> > >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > >> @@ -2102,7 +2102,7 @@ prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, void *p)
> > >>
> > >>    slab = virt_to_slab(p);
> > >>    if (!slab_obj_exts(slab) &&
> > >> -      WARN(alloc_slab_obj_exts(slab, s, flags, false),
> > >> +      WARN_ONCE(alloc_slab_obj_exts(slab, s, flags, false),
> > >>             "%s, %s: Failed to create slab extension vector!\n",
> > >>             __func__, s->name))
> > >
> > > I think this should be pr_warn_once()?
> > > I'm not sure why this was WARN() in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't WARN_ONCE the same as pr_warn_once but with needing the condition
> > of the first arg to be true? We only want to warn if alloc_slab_obj_exts
> > returns non-zero. So WARN_ONCE should be ok?
> >
>
> The difference is the impact on panic_on_warn users which are mostly
> testing bots.

Another difference is that pr_warn() does not spit out the call stack.

> This warning is not actionable, so I agree with Harry to
> covert this to pr_warn_once().

Makes sense.


>
> > > The coding style guide explicitly states that:
> > >> Do not WARN lightly
> > >> ===================
> > >>
> > >> WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations.
> > >> WARN*() macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen
> > >> during normal operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts,
> > >> for example. Again: WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is
> > >> expected to trigger easily, for example, by user space actions.
> > >> pr_warn_once() is a possible alternative, if you need to notify the user
> > >> of a problem.
> > >
> > > And failing to allocate the extension vector can happen during normal
> > > operations.
> > >
> > > panic_on_warn users will be unhappy if they notice their kernel panicked
> > > just because their kernel failed to allocate slab extension vectors, which is
> > > a totally normal situtation.
> > >
> > >>            return NULL;
> > >> --
> > >> 2.47.1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >