linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/damon/core: remove call

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: <20251231012522.75876-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 17:25:20 -0800
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"# 6 . 14 . x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	damon@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon/core: remove call_control in inactive contexts

On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:45:14 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:41:28 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:45:30 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 10:31:01 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> [...]
> > > I will send a new version of this fix soon.
> > 
> > So far, I got two fixup ideas.
> > 
> > The first one is keeping the current code as is, and additionally modifying
> > kdamond_call() to protect all call_control object accesses under
> > ctx->call_controls_lock protection.
> > 
> > The second one is reverting this patch, and doing the DAMON running status
> > check before adding the damon_call_control object, but releasing the
> > kdamond_lock after the object insertion is done.
> > 
> > I'm in favor of the second one at the moment, as it seems more simple.
> 
> I don't really like both approaches because those implicitly add locking rules.
> If the first approach is taken, damon_call() callers should aware they should
> not register callback functions that can hold call_controls_lock.  If the
> second approach is taken, we should avoid holding kdamond_lock while holding
> damon_call_control lock.  The second implicit rule seems easier to keep to me,
> but I want to avoid that if possible.
> 
> The third idea I just got is, keeping this patch as is, and moving the final
> kdamond_call() invocation to be made _before_ the ctx->kdamond reset.  That
> removes the race condition between the final kdamond_call() and
> damon_call_handle_inactive_ctx(), without introducing new locking rules.

I just posted the v2 [1] with the third idea.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/20251231012315.75835-1-sj@kernel.org


Thanks,
SJ

[...]