linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc

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]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:16:26 +0000
From:	"Strashko, Grygorii" <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
CC:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low()

Hi all,

Sorry, for the invalid mail & patch format - have no way to send it properly now.

Suppose there is another way to fix this issue (more generic)
- Correct memblock_virt_allocX() API to limit allocations below memblock.current_limit
(patch attached).

Then the code behavior will become more similar to _alloc_memory_core_early.

Not tested.


Best regards,
- grygorii

________________________________________
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [konrad.wilk@...cle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:56 PM
To: Shilimkar, Santosh
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux; Yinghai Lu; Kevin Hilman; Olof Johansson; Linus Torvalds; Andrew Morton; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; Dave Hansen; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Strashko, Grygorii; xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low()

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:28PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> + Gryagorii,
> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 01:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:23:02PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 12:12 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h
> >>> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
> >>> @@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
> >>>                                                     NUMA_NO_NODE);
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>> +/* Take arch's ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT at first*/
> >>> +#include <asm/processor.h>
> >>> +
> >>>  #ifndef ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT
> >>>  #define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT  0xffffffffUL
> >>>  #endif
> >>
> >> This won't help mostly since the ARM 32 arch don't set ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT.
> >> Sorry i couldn't respond to the thread earlier because of travel and
> >> don't have access to my board to try out the patches.
> >
> > Let's think about this for a moment, shall we...
> >
> > What does memblock_alloc_virt*() return?  It returns a virtual address.
> >
> > How is that virtual address obtained?  ptr = phys_to_virt(alloc);
> >
> > What is the valid address range for passing into phys_to_virt() ?  Only
> > lowmem addresses.
> >
> > Hence, having ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT set to 4GB-1 by default seems to be
> > completely rediculous - and presumably this also fails on x86_32 if it
> > returns memory up at 4GB.
> >
> > So... yes, I think reverting the arch/arm part of this patch is the right
> > solution, whether the rest of it should be reverted is something I can't
> > comment on.
> >
> Grygorri mentioned an alternate to update the memblock_find_in_range_node() so
> that it takes into account the limit.

This patch breaks also Xen and 32-bit guests (see
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-01/msg02476.html)

Reverting it fixes it.

>
> Regards,
> Santosh

View attachment "0001-mm-memblock-fix-upper-boundary-of-allocating-region.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (901 bytes)