On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/15/21 6:16 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> >> Commit ca0cab65ea2b ("mm, slub: introduce static key for slub_debug()")
> >> introduced a static key to optimize the case where no debugging is enabled
> >> for
> >> any cache. The static key is enabled when slub_debug boot parameter is
> >> passed,
> >> or CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON enabled.
> >>
> >> However, some caches might be created with one or more debugging flags
> >> explicitly passed to kmem_cache_create(), and the commit missed this. Thus
> >> the
> >> debugging functionality would not be actually performed for these caches
> >> unless
> >> the static key gets enabled by boot param or config.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes it by checking for debugging flags passed to
> >> kmem_cache_create() and enabling the static key accordingly.
> >>
> >> Note such explicit debugging flags should not be used outside of debugging
> >> and
> >> testing as they will now enable the static key globally.
> >> btrfs_init_cachep()
> >> creates a cache with SLAB_RED_ZONE but that's a mistake that's being
> >> corrected
> >> [1]. rcu_torture_stats() creates a cache with SLAB_STORE_USER, but that is
> >> a
> >> testing module so it's OK and will start working as intended after this
> >> patch.
> >>
> >> Also note that in case of backports to kernels before v5.12 that don't have
> >> 59450bbc12be ("mm, slab, slub: stop taking cpu hotplug lock"),
> >> static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() should be used.
> >>
> >
> > Since this affects 5.9+, is the plan to propose backports to stable with
> > static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() once this is merged? (I notice the
> > absence of the stable tag here, which I believe is intended.)
>
> I was thinking about it, and since the rcutorture user is only in -next
> (AFAICS)
> and btrfs user was unintended, it didn't seem to meet stable criteria to me.
> But
> I won't mind if it's backported.
I had better ask... Should rcutorture be doing something different?
Thanx, Paul
> >> [1]
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Oliver Glitta <[email protected]>
> >> Fixes: ca0cab65ea2b ("mm, slub: introduce static key for slub_debug()")
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks!
>
> >> ---
> >> mm/slub.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index 350a37f30e60..cd6694ad1a0a 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >> @@ -3827,6 +3827,15 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s,
> >> int forced_order)
> >>
> >> static int kmem_cache_open(struct kmem_cache *s, slab_flags_t flags)
> >> {
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
> >> + /*
> >> + * If no slub_debug was enabled globally, the static key is not yet
> >> + * enabled by setup_slub_debug(). Enable it if the cache is being
> >> + * created with any of the debugging flags passed explicitly.
> >> + */
> >> + if (flags & SLAB_DEBUG_FLAGS)
> >> + static_branch_enable(&slub_debug_enabled);
> >> +#endif
> >> s->flags = kmem_cache_flags(s->size, flags, s->name);
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED
> >> s->random = get_random_long();
> >
>
