linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] kthread: Add kthread_take

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <DFGLKV1IYDM7.1W30Z9PG0WIA9@google.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2026 10:52:44 +0000
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <raemoar63@...il.com>, 
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>, 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kthread: Add kthread_take_mm()

On Mon Jan 5, 2026 at 9:56 AM UTC, David Gow wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 at 00:18, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> lib/kunit/user_alloc.c currently uses kthread_use_mm() without a
>> corresponding kthread_unuse_mm(). This is a bug, but fixing it in KUnit
>> makes writing tests that use mms more difficult, because of KUnit's
>> resource/try-catch model.
>>
>> Therefore, introduce a new operation that does what kunit_attach_mm()
>> wants, namely an unbalanced call with cleanup deferred to
>> kthread_exit().
>>
>> This is actually just the same as kthread_use_mm() but without taking a
>> reference on the mm_struct.
>>
>> While adding this, clarify the reference returned by mm_alloc(), since
>> that is what kthread_take_mm() is gonna be paired with, in practice.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
>> ---
>
> This makes some sense to me from the KUnit side, though it'd probably
> be nicer to have a way of actually triggering kunit_unuse_mm() at the
> right spot. I'm not sure if we'll want to have tests spawn additional
> threads sharing the same mm in the future, too, which this shouldn't
> make impossible, particularly if we have a requirement that those
> threads don't outlast the original test thread.
>
> Otherwise, Is there a reason we can't mmdrop() from another kthread
> instead of trying to kthread_unuse_mm()? I wouldn't be surprised (it
> doesn't _seem_ right), but seems to work here.

No I think this works and it's actually how I originally wrote the
patch. 

However I think it's very messy, it depends very heavily on the
implementation of kthread_use_mm(), i.e. it is saying "I assume that
everything in kthread_use_mm() gets undone by kthread_exit(), except
that there's exactly one mmdrop() missing". This seems like a natural
conclusion when you've just spent half an hour staring at
kthread.c and drawing up a stupid little ASCII diagram to try and
drill this godforsaken refcount API into your head... But once you step
away from this patchset I think it would look completely bonkers. Here
I'm looking for a way to actually solve this with a proper API.

On the other hand, I'm now adding a weird special kthread API just to
solve this one little problem in KUnit, which people might reasonably
object to.

So yeah I probably should have laid out some other options in the cover
letter. The ones I can obviously see are:

1. The current proposal.

2. Just call mmdrop() from the other kthread and spray comments
   everywhere to try and make it make sense.

3. Find a way to call kthread_unuse_mm() before the kthread dies, with
   some sort of magic in the kunit_try_catch logic.
   But presumably to make that all work with faulting tests etc is gonna
   mean more special APIs, probably worse than kthread_take_mm(). (I did
   not explore this very carefully so it's possible this is easier than
   I guess).