linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] libnvdimm, pmem: adjust for section collisions with 'System RAM'

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: <CAPcyv4iVCXS53eDxhwKE5RF2RqKKOaEy9BBUYFYT9B9+MAFFfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:19:54 -0800
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc:	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] libnvdimm, pmem: adjust for section collisions
 with 'System RAM'

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 09:18 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 18:23 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
>> > > wrote:
>> [..]
>> > > As far as I can see
>> > > all we do is ask firmware implementations to respect Linux section
>> > > boundaries and otherwise not change alignments.
>> >
>> > In addition to the requirement that pmem range alignment may not
>> > change, the code also requires a regular memory range does not change
>> > to intersect with a pmem section later.  This seems fragile to me since
>> > guest config may vary / change as I mentioned above.
>> >
>> > So, shouldn't the driver fails to attach when the range is not aligned
>> > by the section size?  Since we need to place a requirement to firmware
>> > anyway, we can simply state that it must be aligned by 128MiB (at
>> > least) on x86.  Then, memory and pmem physical layouts can be changed
>> > as long as this requirement is met.
>>
>> We can state that it must be aligned, but without a hard specification
>> I don't see how we can guarantee it.  We will fail the driver load
>> with a warning if our alignment fixups end up getting invalidated by a
>> later configuration change, but in the meantime we cover the gap of a
>> BIOS that has generated a problematic configuration.
>
> I do not think it has to be stated in the spec (although it may be a good
> idea to state it as an implementation note :-).
>
> This is an OS-unique requirement (and the size is x86-specific) that if it
> wants to support Linux pmem pfn, then the alignment needs to be at least
> 128MiB.  Regular pmem does not have this restriction, but it needs to be
> aligned by 2MiB or 1GiB for using huge page mapping, which does not have to
> be stated in the spec, either.

We can check that the alignment is correct when the namespace is first
instantiated, but we're still stuck if the configuration ever changes.

> For KVM to support the pmem pfn feature on x86, it needs to guarantee this
> 128MiB alignment.  Otherwise, this feature is not supported.  (I do not
> worry about NVDIMM-N since it is naturally aligned by its size.)
>
> If we allow unaligned cases, then the driver needs to detect change from
> the initial condition and fail to attach for protecting data.  I did not
> see such check in the code, but I may have overlooked.  We cannot check if
> KVM has any guarantee to keep the alignment at the initial setup, though.

devm_memremap_pages() will fail if the driver tries to pass in an
unaligned address [1] ...and now that I look again, that patch
mishandles the aligning 'size', will fix.

[1]: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2016-February/004729.html