netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/13] netvm: Allow skb allocation to use PFMEMALLOC reserves

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: <20110428100035.GO4658@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:05:06 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] netvm: Allow skb allocation to use PFMEMALLOC
 reserves

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:19:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:08:06 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> > @@ -1578,7 +1589,7 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align(struct net_device *dev,
> >   */
> >  static inline struct page *__netdev_alloc_page(struct net_device *dev, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  {
> > -	return alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask, 0);
> > +	return alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask | __GFP_MEMALLOC, 0);
> >  }
> >  
> 
> I'm puzzling a bit over this change.
> __netdev_alloc_page appears to be used to get pages to put in ring buffer
> for a network card to DMA received packets into.  So it is OK to use
> __GFP_MEMALLOC for these allocations providing we mark the resulting skb as
> 'pfmemalloc' if a reserved page was used.
> 
> However I don't see where that marking is done.
> I think it should be in skb_fill_page_desc, something like:
> 
>   if (page->pfmemalloc)
> 	skb->pfmemalloc = true;
> 
> Is this covered somewhere else that I am missing?
> 

You're not missing anything.

>From the context of __netdev_alloc_page, we do not know if the skb
is suitable for marking pfmemalloc or not (we don't have SKB_ALLOC_RX
flag for example that __alloc_skb has). The reserves are potentially
being dipped into for an unsuitable packet but it gets dropped in
__netif_receive_skb() and the memory is returned. If we mark the skb
pfmemalloc as a result of __netdev_alloc_page using a reserve page, the
packets would not get dropped as expected.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html