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: <20210326112650.307890-1-slyfox@gentoo.org> <4e23d404-5125-6c9c-4aa7-5eff0fa1ba33@redhat.com>
 <469d6417-64a5-fe99-1214-bb0351833b74@suse.cz> <CA+fCnZcZvBT97y3zEatnTvi+RBW5bCrQRim9uK6wobYQOdgNhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a32ffcd0-136f-4cc6-341b-16926e3787bd@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <a32ffcd0-136f-4cc6-341b-16926e3787bd@suse.cz>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:48:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+fCnZdgKpGKGSyY6rmoqzDPTdTOB4DCvQk1NjreUPMRLH3XSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: ignore init_on_free=1 for page alloc
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:07 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 12:00 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:10 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> > commit 855a9c4018f3219db8be7e4b9a65ab22aebfde82
> >> > Author: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
> >> > Date:   Thu Mar 18 17:01:40 2021 +1100
> >> >
> >> >     kasan, mm: integrate page_alloc init with HW_TAGS
> >>
> >> But the mmotm patch/-next commit also changes post_alloc_hook()
> >>
> >> Before the patch it was:
> >> kernel_unpoison_pages(page, 1 << order);
> >> ...
> >> kernel_init_free_pages(page, 1 << order);
> >>
> >> Now it is (for !kasan_has_integrated_init()):
> >>
> >> kernel_init_free_pages(page, 1 << order);
> >>
> >> kernel_unpoison_pages(page, 1 << order);
> >>
> >> That has to be wrong, because we init the page with zeroes and then call
> >> kernel_unpoison_pages() which checks for the 0xaa pattern. Andrey?
> >
> > It's similar to free_pages_prepare(): kernel_unpoison_pages() and
> > want_init_on_alloc() are exclusive, so the order shouldn't matter. Am
> > I missing something?
>
> Yeah, when the allocation has __GFP_ZERO, want_init_on_alloc() will return true
> even with the static branches disabled.

Ah, I see. I'll post a fix soon.

Thank you!