linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2 x86] fix some page faults in nmi if kmemcheck is enabled

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: <1330397141.4112.23.camel@ThinkPad-T61>
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:45:41 +0800
From:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, acme@...stprotocols.net,
	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 x86] fix some page faults in nmi if kmemcheck is
 enabled

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 11:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 17:53 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> 
> > I will think further about it, and would appreciate it if you could give
> > some good ideas. 
> 
> *sigh*.. or you could do your own damn work..

I'm still doing the work ...

> 
> > > > 2. If CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is enabled, the pages allocated through slab will
> > > > be marked as non-present, to capture uninitialized memory access. More
> > > > information in Documentation/kmemcheck.txt .
> > > 
> > > So then kmemcheck is buggy, since the nmiaction structure is initialized
> > > in register_nmi_handler(), so it should most definitely not be marked
> > > non-present.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure whether I understand it correctly. Do you mean that
> > nmiaction is initialized in register_nmi_handler(), which indicates it
> > will be used in nmi, so it shouldn't be marked non-present?
> 
> No, you said that it marks memory non-present to detect uninitialized
> stuff, but since it is initialized, it shouldn't then be non-present,
> right?

>From my understanding of kmemcheck, the checking is based on the
non-present page. So while handling page fault, if the memory hasn't
been written before read, kmemcheck knows that it is uninitialized. 

I think it is used to find code errors, so it need mark all non-present,
to check if there are any access to uninitialized memory. 

> 
> > But for kmemcheck, why need it know the information that page fault is
> > not allowed in nmi? 
> 
> Uh, what?

Please ignore it, as I misunderstood your point previously. 

> > > > 3. From the log, there are some memories accessed in nmi, which are in
> > > > pages marked as non-present by kmemcheck, as they are allocated by
> > > > something like kmalloc(). 
> > > 
> > > So figure out why and fix that instead of writing ugly ass patches that
> > > seemingly work around the problem without actually thinking about it.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think the reason is that kmalloc ( or kzalloc ... ) uses malloc_sizes
> > slab caches to allocate memory. The malloc_sizes slab caches is set up
> > without SLAB_NOTRACK flag, then kmemcheck marks the pages non-present to
> > do its check in page fault handling code. I think we shouldn't disable
> > kmemechek for the general malloc_sizes caches. 
> 
> Nobody said you should.. there's plenty of solutions that aren't ass
> backward stupid nor as ugly.
> 
> First you need to figure out why the page is marked non-present since
> the data structure is initialized (I've got a fair idea why), then look
> if you can tell kmemcheck not to be silly like that.
> 
> Alternatively you can change the nmi stuff to use static storage like
> other notifiers (see notifier_block).

OK, I will try to update the nmi one using this way.

But I think it couldn't be used to the perf stuff. 
For perf, maybe it's good for kmemcheck to have some flag like
__GFP_NO_PAGE_FAULT? Currently it seems only has flags like
__GFP_NOTRACK, which will still mark page non-present. 

> 
> What you don't ever do is write alternative code paths that are never
> ever used except for debugging, that is just asking for problems.
> 

Got it, thanks for the reminder! Previously, I thought the biggest
problem was wasting memory ...

Thanks,
Zhong


--
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/