linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Use 2GB memory block size on large-memory x86-64 systems

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: <CAE9FiQXH0SxTCaw-J=nEhYtbuZfBDU3R+v_XRZYF6ymeXnPsgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:59:53 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
Cc:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Use 2GB memory block size on large-memory x86-64 systems

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you boot with "debug ignore_loglevel" so we can see following print out
>>> for vmemmap?
>>
>> See attached. There are a few extra messages from my own debug printk()
>> calls. It seems that we successfully deal with node 0 from topology_init()
>> but die walking node 1. I see that the NODE_DATA limits for memory
>> on node 1 were from 1d70000 to 3a00000. But when we get into
>> register_mem_sect_under_node() we have rounded the start pfn down to
>> 1d00000 ... and we panic processing that range (which is in a hole in e820).
>>
>> We seem to die here:
>>
>>         for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
>>                 int page_nid;
>>
>>                 page_nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn);
>
> oh, no.
> register_mem_sect_under_node() is assuming:
> first section in the block is present and first page in that section is present.

attached should fix the problem:

View attachment "check_section_for_memory_block_register.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1404 bytes)