On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:52 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/15/24 16:43, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:58 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/6/24 19:24, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> > Account slab allocations using codetag reference embedded into slabobj_ext.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Co-developed-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Nit below:
> >>
> >> > @@ -3833,6 +3913,7 @@ void slab_post_alloc_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, struct obj_cgroup *objcg,
> >> > unsigned int orig_size)
> >> > {
> >> > unsigned int zero_size = s->object_size;
> >> > + struct slabobj_ext *obj_exts;
> >> > bool kasan_init = init;
> >> > size_t i;
> >> > gfp_t init_flags = flags & gfp_allowed_mask;
> >> > @@ -3875,6 +3956,12 @@ void slab_post_alloc_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, struct obj_cgroup *objcg,
> >> > kmemleak_alloc_recursive(p[i], s->object_size, 1,
> >> > s->flags, init_flags);
> >> > kmsan_slab_alloc(s, p[i], init_flags);
> >> > + obj_exts = prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook(s, flags, p[i]);
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> >> > + /* obj_exts can be allocated for other reasons */
> >> > + if (likely(obj_exts) && mem_alloc_profiling_enabled())
>
> Could you at least flip these two checks then so the static key one goes first?
Yes, definitely. I was thinking about removing need_slab_obj_ext()
from prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook() and adding this instead of the above
code:
+ if (need_slab_obj_ext()) {
+ obj_exts = prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook(s, flags, p[i]);
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
+ /*
+ * Currently obj_exts is used only for allocation
profiling. If other users appear
+ * then mem_alloc_profiling_enabled() check should be
added here.
+ */
+ if (likely(obj_exts))
+ alloc_tag_add(&obj_exts->ref,
current->alloc_tag, s->size);
+#endif
+ }
Does that look good?
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> >> > + /* obj_exts can be allocated for other reasons */
> >> > + if (likely(obj_exts) && mem_alloc_profiling_enabled())
>
> >> > + alloc_tag_add(&obj_exts->ref, current->alloc_tag, s->size);
> >> > +#endif
> >>
> >> I think you could still do this a bit better:
> >>
> >> Check mem_alloc_profiling_enabled() once before the whole block calling
> >> prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook() and alloc_tag_add()
> >> Remove need_slab_obj_ext() check from prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook()
> >
> > Agree about checking mem_alloc_profiling_enabled() early and one time,
> > except I would like to use need_slab_obj_ext() instead of
> > mem_alloc_profiling_enabled() for that check. Currently they are
> > equivalent but if there are more slab_obj_ext users in the future then
> > there will be cases when we need to prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook() even
> > when mem_alloc_profiling_enabled()==false. need_slab_obj_ext() will be
> > easy to extend for such cases.
>
> I thought we don't generally future-proof internal implementation details
> like this until it's actually needed. But at least what I suggested above
> would help, thanks.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Suren.
> >
> >>
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook(s, objcg, flags, size, p);
> >> > @@ -4353,6 +4440,7 @@ void slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab, void *object,
> >> > unsigned long addr)
> >> > {
> >> > memcg_slab_free_hook(s, slab, &object, 1);
> >> > + alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook(s, slab, &object, 1);
> >> >
> >> > if (likely(slab_free_hook(s, object, slab_want_init_on_free(s))))
> >> > do_slab_free(s, slab, object, object, 1, addr);
> >> > @@ -4363,6 +4451,7 @@ void slab_free_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab, void *head,
> >> > void *tail, void **p, int cnt, unsigned long addr)
> >> > {
> >> > memcg_slab_free_hook(s, slab, p, cnt);
> >> > + alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook(s, slab, p, cnt);
> >> > /*
> >> > * With KASAN enabled slab_free_freelist_hook modifies the freelist
> >> > * to remove objects, whose reuse must be delayed.
> >>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>
