linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE muram

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:33:36 +0000
From:	Zhao Qiang <qiang.zhao@...escale.com>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"lauraa@...eaurora.org" <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	Xiaobo Xie <X.Xie@...escale.com>,
	"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Li Leo <LeoLi@...escale.com>,
	"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE muram

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:08 PM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:08 PM
> To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org;
> lauraa@...eaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; benh@...nel.crashing.org; Li
> Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@...ba.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE muram
> 
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 21:50 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 7:30 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 7:30 AM
> > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org;
> > > lauraa@...eaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; benh@...nel.crashing.org;
> > > Li Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@...ba.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE
> > > muram
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 00:28 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > > > On Wen, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:03 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:03 PM
> > > > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org;
> > > > > lauraa@...eaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> > > > > benh@...nel.crashing.org; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@...ba.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage
> > > > > CPM/QE muram
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 21:20 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > > > > > On Wen, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > > > > - int ret;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > + unsigned long start;
> > > > > > > > > >   unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > > > > > + unsigned long size_alloc = size; struct muram_block
> > > > > > > > > > + *entry; int end_bit; int order =
> > > > > > > > > > + muram_pool->min_alloc_order;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   spin_lock_irqsave(&cpm_muram_lock, flags);
> > > > > > > > > > - ret = rh_free(&cpm_muram_info, offset);
> > > > > > > > > > + end_bit = (offset >> order) + ((size + (1UL <<
> > > > > > > > > > + order) -
> > > > > > > > > > + 1)
> > > > > > > > > > + >>
> > > > > > > > > order);
> > > > > > > > > > + if ((offset + size) > (end_bit << order))
> > > > > > > > > > +         size_alloc = size + (1UL << order);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do you need to do all these calculations here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So do it in gen_pool_fixed_alloc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you explain why they're needed at all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why it does the calculations?
> > > > > > If the min block of gen_pool is 8 bytes, and I want to
> > > > > > allocate a Region with offset=7, size=8bytes, I actually need
> > > > > > block 0 and block 1, And the allocation will give me block 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you have offset 7 if the minimum order is 2 bytes?
> > > >
> > > > Offset has no relationship with minimum order, it is not decided
> > > > by minimum order.
> > >
> > > All allocations begin and end on a multiple of the minimum order.
> >
> > So it is the problem. CPM require to allocate a specific region, who
> > can ensure that the specific is just the begin of minimum order.
> 
> Do you have any reason to believe that there is any caller of this
> function with an odd address?
> 
> If so, set the minimum order to zero.  If not, what is the problem?

Setting minimum order to zero is ok.

-Zhao