linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix step size adjustment during initial memory mapping

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: <CAE9FiQW7Eu+tcysOdHPjStt1uhNjDDU__THPBEG2h0FbtBsCjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:30:20 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix step size adjustment during initial memory mapping

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
> The old scheme can lead to failure in certain cases - the problem is
> that after bumping step_size the next (non-final) iteration is only
> guaranteed to make available a memory block the size of what step_size
> was before. E.g. for a memory block [0,3004600000) we'd have
>
> iter    start           end             step            amount
> 1       3004400000      30045fffff       2M               2M
> 2       3004000000      30043fffff      64M               4M
> 3       3000000000      3003ffffff       2G              64M
> 4       2000000000      2fffffffff      64G              64G
>
> Yet to map 64G with 4k pages (as happens e.g. under PV Xen) we need
> slightly over 128M, but the first three iterations made only about 70M
> available.
>
> The condition (new_mapped_ram_size > mapped_ram_size) for bumping
> step_size is just not suitable. Instead we want to bump it when we know
> we have enough memory available to cover a block of the new step_size.
> And rather than making that condition more complicated than needed,
> simply adjust step_size by the largest possible factor we know we can
> cover at that point - which is shifting it left by one less than the
> difference between page table level shifts. (Interestingly the original
> STEP_SIZE_SHIFT definition had a comment hinting at that having been
> the intention, just that it should have been PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT-1
> instead of (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2, and of course for non-PAE 32-bit we
> can't really use these two constants as they're equal there.)

Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
--
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/