linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: blk_max

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]

Message-ID: <20070209172820.GA3873@kernel.dk>
Date:	Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:28:20 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Vasily Tarasov <vtaras@...nvz.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	OpenVZ developers ML <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: blk_max_pfn is somtimes wrong

On Thu, Feb 08 2007, Vasily Tarasov wrote:
> There is a small problem in handling page bounce.
> 
> At the moment blk_max_pfn equals max_pfn, which is in fact
> not maximum possible _number_ of a page frame,  but the _amount_
> of page frames. For example for the 32bit x86 node with 4Gb RAM,
> max_pfn = 0x100000, but not 0xFFFF.
> 
> request_queue structure has a member q->bounce_pfn and queue needs
> bounce pages for the pages _above_ this limit. This routine is handled
> by blk_queue_bounce(), where the following check is produced:
> 
> 	if (q->bounce_pfn >= blk_max_pfn)
> 		return;
> 
> Assume, that a driver has set q->bounce_pfn to 0xFFFF, but
> blk_max_pfn equals 0x10000. In such situation the check above
> fails and for each bio we always fall down for iterating over
> pages tied to the bio.
> 
> I want to notice, that for quite a big range of device drivers
> (ide, md, ...) such problem doesn't happen because they use
> BLK_BOUNCE_ANY for bounce_pfn. BLK_BOUNCE_ANY is defined as
> blk_max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, and then the check above doesn't fail.
> But for other drivers, which obtain reuired value from drivers,
> it fails. For example sata_nv uses ATA_DMA_MASK or dev->dma_mask.
> 
> I propose to use (max_pfn - 1) for blk_max_pfn. And the
> same for blk_max_low_pfn. The patch also cleanses some checks
> related with bounce_pfn.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vasily Tarasov <vtaras@...nvz.org>

I will add that this is also a performance optimization, as it was
initially discovered by Vasily because he saw bounces issues with
blktrace. The blktrace notify was done early when we iterated the bio
segments to check for bounces, no bounces were actually issued (this
problem was fixed for 2.6.20 by moving the notify in mm/bounce.c to when
we actually bounce). So it does cause needless bio segment iterations on
some setups, because of this one-off.

Acked-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
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/