linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org,
	cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc_index() to compile-time
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:37:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <90c1b2ae-a5c1-07d1-b056-5b3699b6cc77@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJ0ACtMpasnoZdUp@elver.google.com>

On 5/13/21 12:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:51AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 5/13/21 8:28 AM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 08:40:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 May 2021 12:12:20 +0900 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:52:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >> > > This explodes in mysterious ways.  The patch as I have it is appended,
>> >> > > for reference.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > gcc-10.3.0 allmodconfig.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > This patch suppresses the error:
>> >> 
>> >> Ah, yes, of course, your patch changes kmalloc_index() to require that
>> >> it always is called with a constant `size'.  kfence_test doesn't do
>> >> that.
>> >> 
>> >> kfence is being a bit naughty here - the other kmalloc_index() callers
>> >> only comple up the call after verifying that `size' is a compile-time
>> >> constant.
>> 
>> Agreed.
> 
> It's just a test, and performance doesn't matter for it.

Sure. But what if there appear more users where it will matter. Those would get
better performance out of kmalloc_slab().

> The thing is this function lives in <linux/slab.h>, isn't prefixed with
> __ or anything like that, so it really does look like a public function.
> 
>> >> Would something like this work?
>> 
>> I'd prefer if we kept kmalloc_index() for constant sizes only. The broken build
>> then warns anyone using it the wrong way that they shouldn't.
> 
> Agreed. Andrew's size_is_constant would do that. Also see my suggestion
> below to keep the same interface.
> 
>> Besides, it really
>> shouldn't be used outside of slab.
> 
> It's an allocator test. If we want to facilitate testing, it must be
> allowed to verify or set up test cases that test boundary conditions
> based on internal state.
> 
> In the case of kfence_test it wants:  the cache's alignment to create
> accesses that fall on alignment boundaries; and to verify obj_to_index()
> and objs_per_slab_page() are set up correctly.

OK.

> I think the requirements are:
> 
> 1. Make the interface hard to abuse. Adding the BUILD_BUG_ON does that.

Yes.

> 2. Facilitate testing.

Right.

>> But if kfence test really needs this, we could perhaps extract the index
>> determining part out of kmalloc_slab().
> 
> That would duplicate kmalloc_index()? I don't see the need, let's keep
> things simple.

They are already "duplicated". But one is tailored for constant sizes, the other
for variable sizes.

>> Hmm or I guess the kfence tests could just use kmalloc_slab() directly?
> 
> kmalloc_slab() is internal to slab and should not be exported.

So should be kmalloc_index(). However it needs to have the full implementation
in a header accessible to all kmalloc() users to work, so it's there, visible to
anyone.

> It'd
> require exporting because the tests can be built as modules.

That's true.

> kmalloc_index() works perfectly fine, and the test really doesn't care
> about performance of kmalloc_index(). :-)

OK then.

> See my suggestion below that builds on Andrew's size_is_constant but
> would retain the old interface and support testing.

I can accept that, but please also modify/expand the newly added comment. Now
it's *normally* evaluated in compile-time. And there should be warning that
anyone calling it with size_is_constant == false should do that only in context
where performance (and code bloat, most likely too) doesn't matter, such as unit
test.

Thanks, Vlastimil

> Thanks,
> -- Marco
> 
> ------ >8 ------
> 
> From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] kfence: test: fix for "mm, slub: change run-time assertion in
>  kmalloc_index() to compile-time"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/slab.h    | 9 +++++++--
>  mm/kfence/kfence_test.c | 5 +++--
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 27d142564557..7a10bdc4b7a9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -350,7 +350,8 @@ static __always_inline enum kmalloc_cache_type kmalloc_type(gfp_t flags)
>   * Note: there's no need to optimize kmalloc_index because it's evaluated
>   * in compile-time.
>   */
> -static __always_inline unsigned int kmalloc_index(size_t size)
> +static __always_inline unsigned int __kmalloc_index(size_t size,
> +						    bool size_is_constant)
>  {
>  	if (!size)
>  		return 0;
> @@ -386,11 +387,15 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int kmalloc_index(size_t size)
>  	if (size <=  16 * 1024 * 1024) return 24;
>  	if (size <=  32 * 1024 * 1024) return 25;
>  
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "unexpected size in kmalloc_index()");
> +	if (size_is_constant)
> +		BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "unexpected size in kmalloc_index()");
> +	else
> +		BUG();
>  
>  	/* Will never be reached. Needed because the compiler may complain */
>  	return -1;
>  }
> +#define kmalloc_index(s) __kmalloc_index(s, true)
>  #endif /* !CONFIG_SLOB */
>  
>  void *__kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) __assume_kmalloc_alignment __malloc;
> diff --git a/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c b/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> index 4acf4251ee04..7f24b9bcb2ec 100644
> --- a/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> +++ b/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ static void test_cache_destroy(void)
>  
>  static inline size_t kmalloc_cache_alignment(size_t size)
>  {
> -	return kmalloc_caches[kmalloc_type(GFP_KERNEL)][kmalloc_index(size)]->align;
> +	return kmalloc_caches[kmalloc_type(GFP_KERNEL)][__kmalloc_index(size, false)]->align;
>  }
>  
>  /* Must always inline to match stack trace against caller. */
> @@ -267,7 +267,8 @@ static void *test_alloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp, enum allocat
>  
>  		if (is_kfence_address(alloc)) {
>  			struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(alloc);
> -			struct kmem_cache *s = test_cache ?: kmalloc_caches[kmalloc_type(GFP_KERNEL)][kmalloc_index(size)];
> +			struct kmem_cache *s = test_cache ?:
> +					kmalloc_caches[kmalloc_type(GFP_KERNEL)][__kmalloc_index(size, false)];
>  
>  			/*
>  			 * Verify that various helpers return the right values
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-13 11:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-11 17:34 [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc_index() to compile-time Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-11 17:38 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-11 18:08 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-13  2:52 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-13  3:12   ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13  3:40     ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-13  6:28       ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13  8:46         ` Marco Elver
2021-05-13  8:51         ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-13 10:31           ` Marco Elver
2021-05-13 11:37             ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-05-13 12:08               ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13 12:10                 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13 12:03             ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13 12:29               ` Marco Elver
2021-05-13 12:38                 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13 13:08                 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-13 12:44   ` [PATCH] kfence: test: fix for "mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc_index() to compile-time" Marco Elver
2021-05-15 21:09 ` [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc_index() to compile-time Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-15 21:24   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-15 21:56     ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-16  6:34     ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-05-18  0:38       ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-18  0:43         ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-05-18  1:53           ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-18  9:28           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-18 11:18             ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-05-18 11:34               ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-19  5:45                 ` Hyeonggon Yoo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=90c1b2ae-a5c1-07d1-b056-5b3699b6cc77@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).