Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] mm/page_alloc: free_pcppages_bulk safeguard

[Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 2:19 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The execution sequence is like this:
> >
> >        count = min(pcp->count, count);
> >
> >         /* Ensure requested pindex is drained first. */
> >         pindex = pindex - 1;
> >         bpf_injected_spin_lock_irqsave {
> >                  alloc_page();
> >                  original spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags) ;
> >         }
>
> bpf doesn't call into alloc_page() or slab alloc or pcpu alloc from
> tracing progs.
> All memory is preallocated.

Here is the other patch submission thread which have more detail of
how to reproduce it:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230817-free_pcppages_bulk-v1-1-c14574a9f80c@kernel.org/

It is on older version of the kernel.
> Can you reproduce the issue on the latest upstream kernel?

Hope, the fix on the BPF side went in as commit c66a36af7ba3a628.
I am not aware of other cases.

It seems the consensus is so far is that we don't support BPF doing
nested allocation on spin locks.
That will implite any function called under the spinlocks as well.

Do we care about adding more warnings on this kind of allocation at all?

Chris