[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <da90b3a5-a256-49f7-a640-6585f2cce340@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:20:57 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: Avoid race on slab->obj_exts in alloc_slab_obj_exts
On 10/20/25 04:01, Hao Ge wrote:
>
>> I think retrying like this should work:
>>
>> +retry:
>> old_exts = READ_ONCE(slab->obj_exts);
>> handle_failed_objexts_alloc(old_exts, vec, objects);
>> if (new_slab) {
>> @@ -2145,8 +2146,7 @@ int alloc_slab_obj_exts(struct slab *slab,
>> struct kmem_cache *s,
>> * be simply assigned.
>> */
>> slab->obj_exts = new_exts;
>> - } else if ((old_exts & ~OBJEXTS_FLAGS_MASK) ||
>> - cmpxchg(&slab->obj_exts, old_exts, new_exts) != old_exts) {
>> + } else if (old_exts & ~OBJEXTS_FLAGS_MASK) {
>> /*
>> * If the slab is already in use, somebody can allocate and
>> * assign slabobj_exts in parallel. In this case the existing
>> @@ -2158,6 +2158,8 @@ int alloc_slab_obj_exts(struct slab *slab,
>> struct kmem_cache *s,
>> else
>> kfree(vec);
>> return 0;
>> + } else if (cmpxchg(&slab->obj_exts, old_exts, new_exts) != old_exts) {
>> + goto retry;
>> }
>
> Agree with this. If there are no issues with my comment above,
>
> I will send V2 based on Suren's suggestion.
Great.
> Additionally, I believe the "Fixes" field should be written as follows:
>
> Fixes: 09c46563ff6d ("codetag: debug: introduce OBJEXTS_ALLOC_FAIL to
> mark failed slab_ext allocations")
>
> Am I wrong?
I think it was safe before this one:
f7381b911640 ("slab: mark slab->obj_exts allocation failures unconditionally")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists