linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:03:42 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	linux@....linux.org.uk, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Yakui Zhao <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:06:56 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:04:00 +0900
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >  2. This can't be help for a case where a section has multiple small holes.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. But this(not punched hole but not filled section problem)
> >> >> isn't such case. But it would be better to handle it altogether. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then, my proposal for HOLES_IN_MEMMAP sparsemem is below.
> >> >> > ==
> >> >> > Some architectures unmap memmap[] for memory holes even with SPARSEMEM.
> >> >> > To handle that, pfn_valid() should check there are really memmap or not.
> >> >> > For that purpose, __get_user() can be used.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at free_unused_memmap. We don't unmap pte of hole memmap.
> >> >> Is __get_use effective, still?
> >> >>
> >> > __get_user() works with TLB and page table, the vaddr is really mapped or not.
> >> > If you got SEGV, __get_user() returns -EFAULT. It works per page granule.
> >>
> >> I mean following as.
> >> For example, there is a struct page in on 0x20000000.
> >>
> >> int pfn_valid_mapped(unsigned long pfn)
> >> {
> >>        struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn); /* hole page is 0x2000000 */
> >>        char *lastbyte = (char *)(page+1)-1;  /* lastbyte is 0x2000001f */
> >>        char byte;
> >>
> >>        /* We pass this test since free_unused_memmap doesn't unmap pte */
> >>        if(__get_user(byte, page) != 0)
> >>                return 0;
> >
> > why ? When the page size is 4096 byte.
> >
> >      0x1ffff000 - 0x1ffffffff
> >      0x20000000 - 0x200000fff are on the same page. And memory is mapped per page.
> 
> sizeof(struct page) is 32 byte.
> So lastbyte is address of struct page + 32 byte - 1.
> 
> > What we access by above __get_user() is a byte at [0x20000000, 0x20000001)
> 
> Right.
> 
> > and it's unmapped if 0x20000000 is unmapped.
> 
> free_unused_memmap doesn't unmap pte although it returns the page to
> free list of buddy.
> 
ok, I understood. please see my latest mail and ignore all others.

-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/