Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210118113352.764293297@linuxfoundation.org> <20210118113354.944646657@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20210118224431.GA26685@amd>
In-Reply-To: <20210118224431.GA26685@amd>
From:   Ignat Korchagin <ignat@cloudflare.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 23:05:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CALrw=nEgtxS_SDOP5+T0u6XZ74Hcr451L_d5QdUwDHi7ZaLQ6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 045/152] dm crypt: use GFP_ATOMIC when allocating
 crypto requests from softirq
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org,
        "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:44 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de> wrote:
>
>
> > Fix this by allocating crypto requests with GFP_ATOMIC mask in
> > interrupt context.
> ...
>
> This one is wrong.
>
>
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
> > @@ -1454,13 +1454,16 @@ static int crypt_convert_block_skcipher(
> > -     if (!ctx->r.req)
> > -             ctx->r.req = mempool_alloc(&cc->req_pool, GFP_NOIO);
> > +     if (!ctx->r.req) {
> > +             ctx->r.req = mempool_alloc(&cc->req_pool, in_interrupt() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_NOIO);
>
> Good so far. Ugly but good.
>
> > -static void crypt_alloc_req_aead(struct crypt_config *cc,
> > +static int crypt_alloc_req_aead(struct crypt_config *cc,
> >                                struct convert_context *ctx)
> >  {
> > -     if (!ctx->r.req_aead)
> > -             ctx->r.req_aead = mempool_alloc(&cc->req_pool, GFP_NOIO);
> > +     if (!ctx->r.req) {
> > +             ctx->r.req = mempool_alloc(&cc->req_pool, in_interrupt() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_NOIO);
> > +             if (!ctx->r.req)
> > +                     return -ENOMEM;
> > +     }
>
> But this one can't be good. We are now allocating different field in
> the structure!

Good catch! Sorry for the copy-paste. It is actually not a big deal,
because this is not a structure, but a union:
as long as the mempool was initialized with the correct size, it
should be no different.

Nevertheless, I'll send the patch to fix the typo.

Regards,
Ignat

>                                                                 Pavel
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director:    Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194    Groebenzell, Germany
>