kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v3] fork: free vmapped stacks in cache when cpus are offline

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702101629091.4036@nanos>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:32:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, 
    Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 
    "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 
    Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fork: free vmapped stacks in cache when cpus are
 offline

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-02-17 23:31:41, Hoeun Ryu wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri 10-02-17 17:32:07, Hoeun Ryu wrote:
> [...]
> > >>  static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
> > >> @@ -456,6 +474,11 @@ void __init fork_init(void)
> > >>       for (i = 0; i < UCOUNT_COUNTS; i++) {
> > >>               init_user_ns.ucount_max[i] = max_threads/2;
> > >>       }
> > >> +
> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> > >> +     cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN, "vm_stack_cache",
> > >> +                       NULL, free_vm_stack_cache);
> > >> +#endif
> > >
> > > I am not familiar the new hotplug infrastructure so I might be missing
> > > something. CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN will allocate a state which is has only
> > > 30 slots available. The name also suggests this will be called on an
> > > online event. Why doesn't this have its own state like other users. The
> > > name should also reflect offline event CPUHP_STACK_CACHE_DEAD or
> > > something like that.
> > 
> > I'll define CPUHP_VMSTACK_CACHE_DEAD before CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN in
> > cpuhotplug.h.
> > Do you think the change is made in a separate patch or not ?
> 
> I think it should be in a single patch. I am not sure what are the rules
> to define a new state though. Let's CC Thomas.

So the first question is where do you want that to be called? i.e. in which
section:

CPU up		CPU down

PREPARE		DEAD		<- called on some other CPU
ONLINE		DOWN		<- called on the hotplugged CPU

And then the next question is whether you have ordering constraints,
i.e. it must be called before or after some other callback. Only in that
case you want to have an explicit state. If not, just use a dynamically
allocated one.

Thanks,

	tglx

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.