linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add host physical address width capability

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <jpgr3oghv90.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:45:15 -0400
From:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
To:	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
Cc:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add host physical address width capability

Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com> writes:

> On 07/10/15 16:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/07/2015 16:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>> ... In any case, please understand that I'm not campaigning for this
>>>>> warning :) IIRC the warning was your (very welcome!) idea after I
>>>>> reported the problem; I'm just trying to ensure that the warning match
>>>>> the exact issue I encountered.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.  I think the right thing to do would be to hide memory above the
>>>> limit.
>>> How so?
>>>
>>> - The stack would not be doing what the user asks for. Pass -m <a_lot>,
>>> and the guest would silently see less memory. If the user found out,
>>> he'd immediately ask (or set out debugging) why. I think if the user's
>>> request cannot be satisfied, the stack should fail hard.
>> 
>> That's another possibility.  I think both of them are wrong depending on
>> _why_ you're using "-m <a lot>" in the first place.
>> 
>> Considering that this really happens (on Xeons) only for 1TB+ guests,
>
> I reported this issue because I ran into it with a ~64GB guest. From my
> /proc/cpuinfo:
>
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       M 620  @ 2.67GHz
> address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>
> I was specifically developing 64GB+ support for OVMF, and this
> limitation caused me to think that there was a bug in my OVMF patches.
> (There wasn't.) An error message from QEMU, advising me to turn off EPT,
> would have saved me many hours.

Right, I specifically reserved a system with 36 bits physical to reproduce
this and it was very easy to reproduce. If it's a hardware bug, I would say,
it's a very annoying one (if not serious). I wonder if Intel folks can
chime in.

> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>> it's probably just for debugging and then hiding the memory makes some
>> sense.
Actually, I agree with Laszlo here. Hiding memory is synonymous to forcing the
user to use less for the -m argument as is failing. But failing and letting the
user do it himself can save hours of debugging.

Regards,
The confused teenager who can't make up his mind.

>> Paolo
>> 
--
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/