linux-ext4 - Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?

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

Message-ID: <Zh6n-nvnQbL-0xss@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:31:54 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
Cc: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Subject: Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 06:19:44PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On 2024-04-16 Björn Töpel wrote:
> > Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de> writes:
> > 
> > > Fixed version:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > index fa34cf55037b..af4192bc51d0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > >  	 * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> > > +		memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), PAGE_SIZE);
> > >  		max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> > >  		if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> > >  			memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);  
> > 
> > Nice!
> > 
> > Can't we get rid of the if-statement, and max_mapped_address as well?
> 
> I don't see why not :D
> 
> Best regards,
> Nam
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> index fa34cf55037b..f600cfee0aef 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> @@ -197,7 +197,6 @@ early_param("mem", early_mem);
>  static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t vmlinux_end = __pa_symbol(&_end);
> -	phys_addr_t max_mapped_addr;
>  	phys_addr_t phys_ram_end, vmlinux_start;
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL))
> @@ -238,17 +237,9 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
>  	/*
>  	 * memblock allocator is not aware of the fact that last 4K bytes of
>  	 * the addressable memory can not be mapped because of IS_ERR_VALUE
> -	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock
> -	 * if end of dram is equal to maximum addressable memory.  For 64-bit
> -	 * kernel, this problem can't happen here as the end of the virtual
> -	 * address space is occupied by the kernel mapping then this check must
> -	 * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> +	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock.
>  	 */

It's not only memblock, but buddy as well, so maybe

	/*
	 * The last 4K bytes of the addressable memory can not be used
	 * because of IS_ERR_VALUE macro. Make sure that last 4K bytes are
	 * not usable by kernel memory allocators.
	 */

> -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> -		max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> -		if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> -			memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
> -	}
> +	memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), PAGE_SIZE);

Ack.

>  	min_low_pfn = PFN_UP(phys_ram_base);
>  	max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.