netdev - Re: Concerns regarding PFMEMALLOC handling in __netdev_alloc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:34:03 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Shmulik Ladkani <sladkani@...co.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Concerns regarding PFMEMALLOC handling in __netdev_alloc_skb

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 23:23 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> From c93bdd0e03 "netvm: allow skb allocation to use PFMEMALLOC reserves":
> 
> @@ -366,7 +417,12 @@ struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device *dev,
>  			      SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info));
>  
>  	if (fragsz <= PAGE_SIZE && !(gfp_mask & (__GFP_WAIT | GFP_DMA))) {
> -		void *data = netdev_alloc_frag(fragsz);
> +		void *data;
> +
> +		if (sk_memalloc_socks())
> +			gfp_mask |= __GFP_MEMALLOC;
> +
> +		data = __netdev_alloc_frag(fragsz, gfp_mask);
>  
> 		if (likely(data)) {
> 			skb = build_skb(data, fragsz);
> 			if (unlikely(!skb))
> 				put_page(virt_to_head_page(data));
> 		}
>  	} else {
> -		skb = __alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		skb = __alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask,
> +				  SKB_ALLOC_RX, NUMA_NO_NODE);
>  	}
> 
> In the 'else' part, SKB_ALLOC_RX is provided to '__alloc_skb()'.
> Thus '__alloc_skb()' may attempt using the PFMEMALLOC reserve in case
> 'sk_memalloc_socks()' is true - and 'skb->pfmemalloc' will be set
> accordingly. Good.
> 
> However, in the 'if' part, in case 'sk_memalloc_socks()' is true,
> __GFP_MEMALLOC is passed to '__netdev_alloc_frag()'.
> 
> There are two possible issues here:
> 
> 1. '__netdev_alloc_frag()' might not honour __GFP_MEMALLOC in case the
>    frag fits into current netdev_alloc_cache.frag
> 
> 2. Even if 'nc->frag.page' gets allocated/refilled, and __GFP_MEMALLOC
>    is passed to 'alloc_pages()' - in case the new page is from the
>    PFMEMALLOC reserve, that notion is not propagated to back to
>    skb->pfmemalloc.
> 
> Are these of any concern?

This was discussed few days ago.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg293334.html

http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg293336.html

You should sync with Govindarajulu Varadarajan to cook a proper patch.


--
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