On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 05:25:03PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 14:10 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:01 PM Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <wi...@infradead.org>
> > >
> > > Since vfree() can sleep, calling kvfree() from contexts where sleeping
> > > is not permitted (eg holding a spinlock) is a bit of a lottery whether
> > > it'll work. Introduce kvfree_safe() for situations where we know we can
> > > sleep, but make kvfree() safe by default.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Jeff Layton <jlay...@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Alexander Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > > Cc: Luis Henriques <lhenriq...@suse.com>
> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
> > > Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiol...@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <wi...@infradead.org>
> >
> > So you say you are adding kvfree_safe() in the patch description, but
> > it looks like you are introducing kvfree_fast() below. Did something
> > change and the patch description wasn't updated, or is this just the
> > wrong description for this patch?
Oops, bad description. Thanks, I'll fix it for v2.
> > > +/**
> > > + * kvfree_fast() - Free memory.
> > > + * @addr: Pointer to allocated memory.
> > > + *
> > > + * kvfree_fast frees memory allocated by any of vmalloc(), kmalloc() or
> > > + * kvmalloc(). It is slightly more efficient to use kfree() or vfree()
> > > if
> > > + * you are certain that you know which one to use.
> > > + *
> > > + * Context: Either preemptible task context or not-NMI interrupt. Must
> > > not
> > > + * hold a spinlock as it can sleep.
> > > + */
> > > +void kvfree_fast(const void *addr)
> > > +{
> > > + might_sleep();
> > > +
>
> might_sleep_if(!in_interrupt());
>
> That's what vfree does anyway, so we might as well exempt the case where
> you are.
True, but if we are in interrupt, then we may as well call kvfree() since
it'll do the same thing, and this way the rules are clearer.
> > > + if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> > > + vfree(addr);
> > > + else
> > > + kfree(addr);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kvfree_fast);
> > > +
>
> That said -- is this really useful?
>
> The only way to know that this is safe is to know what sort of
> allocation it is, and in that case you can just call kfree or vfree as
> appropriate.
It's safe if you know you're not holding any spinlocks, for example ...
