linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/11] x86, memblock: Set lowest limit for memblock_alloc_base

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: <1378308138.10300.948.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:22:18 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
	trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org, jiang.liu@...wei.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] x86, memblock: Set lowest limit for
 memblock_alloc_base_nid().

On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 10:05 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 08:37 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 17:37 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> memblock_alloc_base_nid() is a common API of memblock. And it calls
> >> memblock_find_in_range_node() with %start = 0, which means it has no
> >> limit for the lowest address by default.
> >>
> >> 	memblock_find_in_range_node(0, max_addr, size, align, nid);
> >>
> >> Since we introduced current_limit_low to memblock, if we have no limit
> >> for the lowest address or we are not sure, we should pass
> >> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE to %start so that it will be limited by the
> >> default low limit.
> >>
> >> dma_contiguous_reserve() and setup_log_buf() will eventually call
> >> memblock_alloc_base_nid() to allocate memory. So if the allocation order
> >> is from low to high, they will allocate memory from the lowest limit
> >> to higher memory.
> >
> > This requires the callers to use MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE instead of 0.
> > Is there a good way to make sure that all callers will follow this rule
> > going forward?  Perhaps, memblock_find_in_range_node() should emit some
> > message if 0 is passed when current_order is low to high and the boot
> > option is specified?
> 
> How about set this as the default rule:
> 
> 	When using from low to high order, always allocate memory from
> 	current_limit_low.
> 
> So far, I think only movablenode boot option will use this order.

Sounds good to me.

> > Similarly, I wonder if we should have a check to the allocation size to
> > make sure that all allocations will stay small in this case.
> >
> 
> We can check the size. But what is the stragety after we found that the 
> size
> is too large ?  Do we refuse to allocate memory ?  I don't think so.

We can just add a log message.  No need to fail.

> I think only relocate_initrd() and reserve_crachkernel() could allocate 
> large
> memory. reserve_crachkernel() is easy to reorder, but reordering 
> relocate_initrd()
> is difficult because acpi_initrd_override() need to access to it with va.
> 
> I think on most servers, we don't need to do relocate_initrd(). initrd 
> will be
> loaded to mapped memory in normal situation. Can we just leave it there ?

Since this approach relies on the assumption that all allocations are
small enough, it would be nice to have a way to verify if it remains
true.  How about we measure a total amount of allocations while the
order is low to high, and log it when switched to high to low?  This
way, we can easily monitor the usage.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/