| 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: <AANLkTim7s4FH+hU19d53R3JLKm3pcDGV5cMMeST-Wyrz@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:56:24 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v4
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com> wrote:
>
> On Tue Jul 27 2010 about 02:11:22 Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > [Sorry if i missed or added anyone on cc, patchwork.kernel.org LKML is not
>> > working and I'm not subscribed to the list ]
>>
>> Readd them. :)
>
> Changed linux-mmc at vger to linxu-mm at kvack.org, from my poor use of grep
> MAINTAINERS.
>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM, <miltonm@...xxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon Jul 26 2010 about 12:47:37 EST, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > This patch registers address of mem_section to memmap itself's page struct's
>> > > > pg->private field. This means the page is used for memmap of the section.
>> > > > Otherwise, the page is used for other purpose and memmap has a hole.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > +void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
>> > > > +static inline int memmap_valid(unsigned long pfn)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> > > > + struct page *__pg = virt_to_page(page);
>> > > > + return page_private(__pg) == (unsigned long)__pg;
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What if page->private just happens to be the value of the page struct?
>> > > Even if that is not possible today, someday someone may add new
>> > > functionality to the kernel where page->pivage == page is used for some
>> > > reason.
>> > >
>> > > Checking for PG_reserved wont work?
>> >
>> > I had the same thought and suggest setting it to the memory section block,
>> > since that is a uniquie value (unlike PG_reserved),
>>
>> You mean setting pg->private to mem_section address?
>> I hope I understand your point.
>>
>> Actually, KAMEZAWA tried it at first version but I changed it.
>> That's because I want to support this mechanism to ARM FLATMEM.
>> (It doesn't have mem_section)
>
>> >
>> > .. and we already have computed it when we use it so we could pass it as
>> > a parameter (to both _valid and mark_valid).
>>
>> I hope this can support FALTMEM which have holes(ex, ARM).
>>
>
> If we pass a void * to this helper we should be able to find another
> symbol. Looking at the pfn_valid() in arch/arm/mm/init.c I would
> probably choose &meminfo as it is already used nearby, and using a single
If we uses pg itself and PG_reserved, we can remove &meminfo in FLATMEM.
> symbol in would avoid issues if a more specific symbol chosen (eg bank)
> were to change at a pfn boundary not PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct page).
> Similarly the asm-generic/page.h version could use &max_mapnr.
I don't consider NOMMU.
I am not sure NOMMU have a this problem.
>
> This function is a validation helper for pfn_valid not the only check.
>
> something like
>
> static inline int memmap_valid(unsigned long pfn, void *validate)
> {
> struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> struct page *__pg = virt_to_page(page);
> return page_private(__pg) == validate;
> }
I am not sure what's benefit we have if we use validate argument.
>
> static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> {
> struct mem_section *ms;
> if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
> return 0;
> ms = __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
> return valid_section(ms) && memmap_valid(pfn, ms);
> }
>
>> > > > +/*
>> > > > + * Fill pg->private on valid mem_map with page itself.
>> > > > + * pfn_valid() will check this later. (see include/linux/mmzone.h)
>> > > > + * Every arch for supporting hole of mem_map should call
>> > > > + * mark_valid_memmap(start, end). please see usage in ARM.
>> > > > + */
>> > > > +void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > + struct mem_section *ms;
>> > > > + unsigned long pos, next;
>> > > > + struct page *pg;
>> > > > + void *memmap, *mapend;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + for (pos = start; pos < end; pos = next) {
>> > > > + next = (pos + PAGES_PER_SECTION) & PAGE_SECTION_MASK;
>> > > > + ms = __pfn_to_section(pos);
>> > > > + if (!valid_section(ms))
>> > > > + continue;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + for (memmap = (void*)pfn_to_page(pos),
>> > > > + /* The last page in section */
>> > > > + mapend = pfn_to_page(next-1);
>> > > > + memmap < mapend; memmap += PAGE_SIZE) {
>> > > > + pg = virt_to_page(memmap);
>> > > > + set_page_private(pg, (unsigned long)pg);
>> > > > + }
>> > > > + }
>> > > > +}
>
> Hmm, this loop would need to change for sections. And sizeof(struct
> page) % PAGE_SIZE may not be 0, so we want a global symbol for sparsemem
I can't understand your point. What is problem of sizeof(struct page)%PAGE_SIZE?
AFAIK, I believe sizeof(struct page) is always 32 bit in 32 bit
machine and most of PAGE_SIZE is 4K. What's problem happen?
> too. Perhaps the mem_section array. Using a symbol that is part of
> the model pre-checks can remove a global symbol lookup and has the side
> effect of making sure our pfn_valid is for the right model.
global symbol lookup?
Hmm, Please let me know your approach's benefit for improving this patch. :)
Thanks for careful review, milton.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists