linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi

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: <20060804121308.e9720b49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:13:08 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	kmannth@...ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lhms-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:00:08 -0700
keith mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com> wrote:


> > >   What protecting is there for calling add_memory on an already present
> > > memory range?  
> > > 
> > For example, considering ia64, which has 1Gbytes section...
> 
> Maybe 1gb sections is too large?  
> 
ia64 machines sometimes to have crazy big memory...so 1gb section is requested.
Configurable section_size for small machines was rejected in old days.


> > hot add following region.
> > ==
> > (A) 0xc0000000 - 0xd7ffffff  (section 3)
> > (B) 0xe0000000 - 0xffffffff  (section 3)
> > ==
> > (A) and (B) will go to the same section, but there is a memory hole between
> > (A) and (B). Considering memory (B) appears after (A) in DSDT.
> > 
> > After add_memory() against (A) is called, section 3 is ready.
> > Then, pfn_valid(0xe0000000) and pfn_valid(0xffffffff) returns true because
> > they are in section 3.
> > So, checking pfn_valid() for (B) will returns true and memory (B) cannot be
> > added. ioresouce collision check will help this situation.
> 
> With iommus out there throwing aliment all off way the flexability is
> good. 
> 
> My question is this.
> 
> Assuming 0-0xbfffffff is present.
> 
> What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call
> to add_memory?

Usual sparsemem's add_memory() checks whether there are sections in
sparse_add_one_section(). then add_pages() returns -EEXIST (nothing to do).
And ioresouce collision check will finally find collision because 0-0xbffffff
resource will conflict with 0xa0000000 to 0xa10000000 area.
But, x86_64 's (not sparsemem) add_pages() doen't do collision check, so it panics.
I posted patch to catch collision before calling arch_add_memory(), I think it will
help x86_64 users. and no-re-online.

-Kame


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/