| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240612072340.hsdxusmszixebvrt@master>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:23:40 +0000
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...gle.com>, wklin@...gle.com,
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/memblock: Add "reserve_mem" to reserved named
memory at boot up
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:12:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:40:29 +0000
>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com> wrote:
>
>Missed this just before sending out v3 :-p
>
>> >diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
>> >index d09136e040d3..a8bf0ee9e2b4 100644
>> >--- a/mm/memblock.c
>> >+++ b/mm/memblock.c
>> >@@ -2244,6 +2244,103 @@ void __init memblock_free_all(void)
>> > totalram_pages_add(pages);
>> > }
>> >
>> >+/* Keep a table to reserve named memory */
>> >+#define RESERVE_MEM_MAX_ENTRIES 8
>> >+#define RESERVE_MEM_NAME_SIZE 16
>> ^
>> Suggest to align with previous line.
>
>It is. But because the patch adds a "+", it pushed the "8" out another tab.
>
>>
>> >+struct reserve_mem_table {
>> >+ char name[RESERVE_MEM_NAME_SIZE];
>> >+ unsigned long start;
>> >+ unsigned long size;
>>
>> phys_addr_t looks more precise?
>
>For just the start variable, correct? I'm OK with updating that.
>
Both start and size. When you look at the definition of memblock_region, both
are defined as phys_addr_t.
>>
>> >+};
>> >+static struct reserve_mem_table reserved_mem_table[RESERVE_MEM_MAX_ENTRIES];
>> >+static int reserved_mem_count;
>>
>> Seems no matter we use this feature or not, these memory would be occupied?
>
>Yes, because allocation may screw it up as well. I could add a CONFIG
>around it, so that those that do not want this could configure it out. But
>since it's just a total of (16 + 8 + 8) * 8 = 256 bytes, I'm not sure it's
>much of a worry to add the complexities to save that much space. As the
>code to save it may likely be bigger.
>
If Mike feel good to it, I am ok.
>>
>> >+
>> >+/* Add wildcard region with a lookup name */
>> >+static int __init reserved_mem_add(unsigned long start, unsigned long size,
>> >+ const char *name)
>> >+{
>> >+ struct reserve_mem_table *map;
>> >+
>> >+ if (!name || !name[0] || strlen(name) >= RESERVE_MEM_NAME_SIZE)
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>> >+ if (reserved_mem_count >= RESERVE_MEM_MAX_ENTRIES)
>> >+ return -1;
>>
>> return ENOSPC? Not good at it, but a raw value maybe not a good practice.
>
>This is what gets returned by the command line parser. It only cares if it
>is zero or not.
>
>>
>> Also, we'd better do this check before allocation.
>
>What allocation?
>
You call reserved_mem_add() after memblock_phys_alloc().
My suggestion is do those sanity check before calling memblock_phys_alloc().
>>
>> >+
>> >+ map = &reserved_mem_table[reserved_mem_count++];
>> >+ map->start = start;
>> >+ map->size = size;
>> >+ strscpy(map->name, name);
>> >+ return 0;
>> >+}
>> >+
>> >+/**
>> >+ * reserve_mem_find_by_name - Find reserved memory region with a given name
>> >+ * @name: The name that is attached to a reserved memory region
>> >+ * @start: If found, holds the start address
>> >+ * @size: If found, holds the size of the address.
>> >+ *
>> >+ * Returns: 1 if found or 0 if not found.
>> >+ */
>> >+int reserve_mem_find_by_name(const char *name, unsigned long *start, unsigned long *size)
>> >+{
>> >+ struct reserve_mem_table *map;
>> >+ int i;
>> >+
>> >+ for (i = 0; i < reserved_mem_count; i++) {
>> >+ map = &reserved_mem_table[i];
>> >+ if (!map->size)
>> >+ continue;
>> >+ if (strcmp(name, map->name) == 0) {
>> >+ *start = map->start;
>> >+ *size = map->size;
>> >+ return 1;
>> >+ }
>> >+ }
>> >+ return 0;
>> >+}
>> >+
>> >+/*
>> >+ * Parse early_reserve_mem=nn:align:name
>>
>> early_reserve_mem or reserve_mem ?
>
>Oops, that was the original name. I'll change that.
>
>>
>> >+ */
>> >+static int __init reserve_mem(char *p)
>> >+{
>> >+ phys_addr_t start, size, align;
>
>Hmm, I wonder if I should change size and align to unsigned long?
>
I grep the kernel, some use u64, some use unsigned long.
I think it is ok to use unsigned long here.
>> >+ char *oldp;
>> >+ int err;
>> >+
>> >+ if (!p)
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>> >+ oldp = p;
>> >+ size = memparse(p, &p);
>> >+ if (p == oldp)
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>> >+ if (*p != ':')
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>> >+ align = memparse(p+1, &p);
>> >+ if (*p != ':')
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>>
>> Better to check if the name is valid here.
>
>You mean that it has text and is not blank?
>
>>
>> Make sure command line parameters are valid before doing the allocation.
>
>You mean that size is non zero?
>
I mean do those sanity check before real allocation.
>I don't know if we care what the align is. Zero is valid.
>
memblock internal would check the alignment. If it is zero, it will change to
SMP_CACHE_BYTES with dump_stack().
>>
>> >+ start = memblock_phys_alloc(size, align);
>> >+ if (!start)
>> >+ return -ENOMEM;
>> >+
>> >+ p++;
>> >+ err = reserved_mem_add(start, size, p);
>> >+ if (err) {
>> >+ memblock_phys_free(start, size);
>> >+ return err;
>> >+ }
>> >+
>> >+ p += strlen(p);
>> >+
>> >+ return *p == '\0' ? 0: -EINVAL;
>>
>> We won't free the memory if return -EINVAL?
>
>I guess we can do this check before the allocation, like you suggested.
>
>Thanks for the review.
>
>-- Steve
>
>
>>
>> >+}
>> >+__setup("reserve_mem=", reserve_mem);
>> >+
>> > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK)
>> > static const char * const flagname[] = {
>> > [ilog2(MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG)] = "HOTPLUG",
>> >--
>> >2.43.0
>> >
>> >
>>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists