linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Nosek <mateusznosek0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, page_alloc: do not rely on the order of page_poison and init_on_alloc/free parameters
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:58:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a2b88de-3c01-21d0-69ff-08643f7c4b68@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3784dac7-49cb-006b-7b9d-1244d5c59935@redhat.com>

On 10/27/20 10:03 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.10.20 18:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Enabling page_poison=1 together with init_on_alloc=1 or init_on_free=1 produces
>> a warning in dmesg that page_poison takes precendence. However, as these
>> warnings are printed in early_param handlers for init_on_alloc/free, they are
>> not printed if page_poison is enabled later on the command line (handlers are
>> called in the order of their parameters), or when init_on_alloc/free is always
>> enabled by the respective config option - before the page_poison early param
>> handler is called, it is not considered to be enabled. This is inconsistent.
>> 
>> We can remove the dependency on order by making the init_on_* parameters only
>> set a boolean variable, and postponing the evaluation after all early params
>> have been processed. Introduce a new init_mem_debugging() function for that,
>> and move the related debug_pagealloc processing there as well.
> 
> init_mem_debugging() is somewhat sub-optimal - init_on_alloc=1 or
> init_on_free=1 are rather security hardening mechanisms.

Well yeah, init_mem_debugging_and_hardening()?

> ... I wondered if this could be the place to initialize any kind of mm
> parameters in the future. Like init_mem_params() or so.

Maybe. In practice you often find out that different things have to be hooked in 
different points of the init process, and a single function might not be enough. 
I tried to group stuff that's really inter-related and can be initialized at the 
same time.

>> 
>> As a result init_mem_debugging() knows always accurately if init_on_* and/or
>> page_poison options were enabled. Thus we can also optimize want_init_on_alloc()
>> and want_init_on_free(). We don't need to check page_poisoning_enabled() there,
>> we can instead not enable the init_on_* tracepoint at all, if page poisoning is
>> enabled. This results in a simpler and more effective code.
> 
> LGTM
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Thanks!


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-27  9:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-26 17:33 [PATCH 0/3] optimize handling of memory debugging parameters Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-26 17:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm, page_alloc: do not rely on the order of page_poison and init_on_alloc/free parameters Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-27  9:03   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-10-27  9:58     ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2020-10-27  9:58       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-10-28  8:31   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-26 17:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm, page_poison: use static key more efficiently Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-27  9:07   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-10-30 16:27   ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-10-30 22:56     ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-11-11 13:29       ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-10-26 17:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm, page_alloc: reduce static keys in prep_new_page() Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-27  9:10   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-10-27 11:05     ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-27 13:32       ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-27 17:41         ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-28  8:38           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-10-29 17:37         ` Alexander Potapenko

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=9a2b88de-3c01-21d0-69ff-08643f7c4b68@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mateusznosek0@gmail.com \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    /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).