Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kmemleak: survive in a low-memory situation
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, cl@linux.com,
        willy@infradead.org, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190327005948.24263-1-cai@lca.pw>
 <20190327084432.GA11927@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <651bd879-c8c0-b162-fee7-1e523904b14e@lca.pw>
 <20190327114458.GF11927@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Message-ID: <68cff59d-2b0e-5a7b-bca9-36784522059b@lca.pw>
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:05:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190327114458.GF11927@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/27/19 7:44 AM, Michal Hocko wrote> What? Normal spin lock implementation
doesn't disable interrupts. So
> either I misunderstand what you are saying or you seem to be confused.
> the thing is that in_atomic relies on preempt_count to work properly and
> if you have CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n then you simply never know whether
> preemption is disabled so you do not know that a spin_lock is held.
> irqs_disabled on the other hand checks whether arch specific flag for
> IRQs handling is set (or cleared). So you would only catch irq safe spin
> locks with the above check.

Exactly, because kmemleak_alloc() is only called in a few call sites, slab
allocation, neigh_hash_alloc(), alloc_page_ext(), sg_kmalloc(),
early_amd_iommu_init() and blk_mq_alloc_rqs(), my review does not yield any of
those holding irq unsafe spinlocks.

Could future code changes suddenly call kmemleak_alloc() with a irq unsafe
spinlock held? Always possible, but it is unlikely to happen. I could put some
comments on kmemleak_alloc() about this though.