linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good

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: <20121004164551.GA2244@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:45:51 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:57:55AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> After
> >>
> >> | commit 8548c84da2f47e71bbbe300f55edb768492575f7
> >> | Author: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> >> | Date:   Sun Oct 23 23:19:12 2011 +0200
> >> |
> >> |    x86: Fix S4 regression
> >> |
> >> |    Commit 4b239f458 ("x86-64, mm: Put early page table high") causes a S4
> >> |    regression since 2.6.39, namely the machine reboots occasionally at S4
> >> |    resume.  It doesn't happen always, overall rate is about 1/20.  But,
> >> |    like other bugs, once when this happens, it continues to happen.
> >> |
> >> |    This patch fixes the problem by essentially reverting the memory
> >> |    assignment in the older way.
> >>
> >> Have some page table around 512M again, that will prevent kdump to find 512M
> >> under 768M.
> >>
> >> We need revert that reverting, so we could put page table high again for 64bit.
> >>
> >> Takashi agreed that S4 regression could be something else.
> >>
> >>       https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/15/182
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/mm/init.c |    2 +-
> >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> index 9f69180..aadb154 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> @@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ static void __init find_early_table_space(struct map_range *mr,
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >>       /* for fixmap */
> >>       tables += roundup(__end_of_fixed_addresses * sizeof(pte_t), PAGE_SIZE);
> >> -#endif
> >>       good_end = max_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >>       base = memblock_find_in_range(start, good_end, tables, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>       if (!base)
> >
> > Isn't this going to cause init_memory_mapping to allocate pagetable
> > pages from memory not yet mapped?
> 
> but 64bit is using ioremap to access those page table buf.
> 
> > Last time I spoke with HPA and Thomas about this, they seem to agree
> > that it isn't a very good idea.
> > Also, it is proven to cause a certain amount of headaches on Xen,
> > see commit d8aa5ec3382e6a545b8f25178d1e0992d4927f19.
> 
> this patchset will allocate page table buf one time only.

As in, if your machine has 8GB, it will allocate pagetables that
span 0->8GB at once?

> So could use ram under 1M to map that page table at first.

Could or does this patch do it? And why 1MB?
> 
> so that will make it xen happy ?

The issues that Xen faces are purely due to the fact that they
must be RO when they are in use. I believe (and without actually
checking it just to make sure) that it does not matter where
the page-tables are located. But with the current generic code
the location is quite linear: it starts with pgt_buf_start and
goes up to pgt_buf_top. So how would this patch move the location
of the page-table to be under 1MB?

Perhaps we are talking about seperate topics?

My recollection of memblock_find_in_range is that it will try
the end of the range to find a suitable "chunk" that satisfies
the 'size' and 'aligment' parameters?
--
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/