netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] mm/slab: Introduce kmem_buckets

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]

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:17:15 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi@...weicloud.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, jvoisin <julien.voisin@...tri.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
 Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] mm/slab: Introduce kmem_buckets_create() and
 family

On 6/28/24 11:06 AM, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > I took a quick look as what kmem_buckets is, and seems to me that align
>> > doesn't make sense here (and probably not useful in Rust as well)
>> > because a kmem_buckets is a set of kmem_caches, each has its own object
>> > size, making them share the same alignment is probably not what you
>> > want. But I could be missing something.
>>
>> How flexible do you need those alignments to be? Besides the power-of-two
>> guarantees, we currently have only two odd sizes with 96 and 192. If those
>> were guaranteed to be aligned 32 bytes, would that be sufficient? Also do
>> you ever allocate anything smaller than 32 bytes then?
>>
>> To summarize, if Rust's requirements can be summarized by some rules and
>> it's not completely ad-hoc per-allocation alignment requirement (or if it
>> is, does it have an upper bound?) we could perhaps figure out the creation
>> of rust-specific kmem_buckets to give it what's needed?
> 
> Rust's allocator API can take any size and alignment as long as:
> 
> 1. The alignment is a power of two.
> 2. The size is non-zero.
> 3. When you round up the size to the next multiple of the alignment,
> then it must not overflow the signed type isize / ssize_t.
> 
> What happens right now is that when Rust wants an allocation with a
> higher alignment than ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN, then it will increase size
> until it becomes a power of two so that the power-of-two guarantee
> gives a properly aligned allocation.

So am I correct thinking that, if the cache of size 96 bytes guaranteed a
32byte alignment, and 192 bytes guaranteed 64byte alignment, and the rest of
sizes with the already guaranteed power-of-two alignment, then on rust side
you would only have to round up sizes to the next multiples of the alignemnt
(rule 3 above) and that would be sufficient?
 Abstracting from the specific sizes of 96 and 192, the guarantee on kmalloc
side would have to be - guarantee alignment to the largest power-of-two
divisor of the size. Does that sound right?

Then I think we could have some flag for kmem_buckets creation that would do
the right thing.

> Alice