From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f198.google.com (mail-lj1-f198.google.com [209.85.208.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E87F6B0495 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f198.google.com with SMTP id e11-v6so3401759lji.23 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id q5-v6sor4104490ljh.31.2018.10.29.11.21.21 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] prmem: struct page: track vmap_area References: <20181023213504.28905-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181023213504.28905-9-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181024031200.GC25444@bombadil.infradead.org> <20181025021307.GH25444@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: <4b1ed33c-9b3c-a61f-b919-aeed97edddac@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:21:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181025021307.GH25444@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mimi Zohar , Kees Cook , Dave Chinner , James Morris , Michal Hocko , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, igor.stoppa@huawei.com, Dave Hansen , Jonathan Corbet , Laura Abbott , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , Pavel Tatashin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25/10/2018 03:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 02:01:02AM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote: >>>> @@ -1747,6 +1750,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, >>>> if (!addr) >>>> return NULL; >>>> + va = __find_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr); >>>> + for (i = 0; i < va->vm->nr_pages; i++) >>>> + va->vm->pages[i]->area = va; >>> >>> I don't like it that you're calling this for _every_ vmalloc() caller >>> when most of them will never use this. Perhaps have page->va be initially >>> NULL and then cache the lookup in it when it's accessed for the first time. >>> >> >> If __find_vmap_area() was part of the API, this loop could be left out from >> __vmalloc_node_range() and the user of the allocation could initialize the >> field, if needed. >> >> What is the reason for keeping __find_vmap_area() private? > > Well, for one, you're walking the rbtree without holding the spinlock, > so you're going to get crashes. I don't see why we shouldn't export > find_vmap_area() though. Argh, yes, sorry. But find_vmap_area() would be enough for what I need. > Another way we could approach this is to embed the vmap_area in the > vm_struct. It'd require a bit of juggling of the alloc/free paths in > vmalloc, but it might be worthwhile. I have a feeling of unease about the whole vmap_area / vm_struct duality. They clearly are different types, with different purposes, but here and there there are functions that are named after some "area", yet they actually refer to vm_struct pointers. I wouldn't mind spending some time understanding the reason for this apparently bizarre choice, but after I have emerged from the prmem swamp. For now I'd stick to find_vmap_area(). -- igor