linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/show_mem: Add trylock while printing alloc info

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: <2182c715-aaf1-46d1-809e-e4142bc083af@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:53:01 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/show_mem: Add trylock while printing alloc info

On 8/28/25 10:47, Yueyang Pan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:41:23AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 8/28/25 10:34, Yueyang Pan wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 03:06:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:34:23 -0700 Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In production, show_mem() can be called concurrently from two
>> >> > different entities, for example one from oom_kill_process()
>> >> > another from __alloc_pages_slowpath from another kthread. This
>> >> > patch adds a mutex and invokes trylock before printing out the
>> >> > kernel alloc info in show_mem(). This way two alloc info won't
>> >> > interleave with each other, which then makes parsing easier.
>> 
>> What about the rest of the information printed by show_mem() being interleaved?
> 
> Thanks for your feedback, Vlastimil. We cannot use trylock for the rest 
> part as node filter can be different.

Right.

> Do you think we need a lock to prevent the whole show_mem() from being 
> interleaved and to acquire it at the very beginning? Will it be too 
> heavy?

It might be risky so perhaps let's not. Guess we can disentangle by dmesg
showing the thread id prefix.