netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

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: <5889D7AD.5030103@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:04:13 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then
>>>>> it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue that was fixed.
>>>>> If you look above at flags, they're also passed to __vmalloc() to not
>>>>> trigger OOM in these situations I've experienced.
>>>>
>>>> Pushing __GFP_NORETRY to __vmalloc doesn't have the effect you might
>>>> think it would. It can still trigger the OOM killer becauset the flags
>>>> are no propagated all the way down to all allocations requests (e.g.
>>>> page tables). This is the same reason why GFP_NOFS is not supported in
>>>> vmalloc.
>>>
>>> Ok, good to know, is that somewhere clearly documented (like for the
>>> case with kmalloc())?
>>
>> I am afraid that we really suck on this front. I will add something.
>
> So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with
> kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code.
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index d89034a393f2..6c1aa2c68887 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1741,6 +1741,13 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>    *	Allocate enough pages to cover @size from the page level
>    *	allocator with @gfp_mask flags.  Map them into contiguous
>    *	kernel virtual space, using a pagetable protection of @prot.
> + *
> + *	Reclaim modifiers in @gfp_mask - __GFP_NORETRY, __GFP_REPEAT
> + *	and __GFP_NOFAIL are not supported

We could probably also mention that __GFP_ZERO in @gfp_mask is
supported, though.

> + *	Any use of gfp flags outside of GFP_KERNEL should be consulted
> + *	with mm people.

Just a question: should that read 'GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM' as
that is what vmalloc() resp. vzalloc() and others pass as flags?

> + *
>    */

Sounds good otherwise, thanks Michal!

>   static void *__vmalloc_node(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>   			    gfp_t gfp_mask, pgprot_t prot,