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: <CAKv+Gu-2uGJGovqQL-gbB54u=fQ9L9YUbDdRo6u3oWqF6znn6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:07:44 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix memmap to be initialized for the entire section

On 17 November 2016 at 15:18, Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> On 17.11.16 14:25:29, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:51:32PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
>> > Thus, I don't see where my patch breaks code. Even acpi_os_ioremap()
>> > keeps the same behaviour as before since it still uses memblock_is_
>> > memory(). Could you more describe your concerns why do you think this
>> > patch breaks the kernel and moves the problem somewhere else? I
>> > believe it fixes the problem at all.
>>
>> acpi_os_ioremap always ends up in __ioremap_caller, regardless of
>> memblock_is_memory(). __ioremap_caller then fails if pfn_valid is true.
>
> But that's the reason my patch changed the code to use memblock_is_
> map_memory() instead. I was looking into the users of pfn_valid() esp.
> in arm64 code and changed it where required.
>
> This week I looked into the kernel again for code that might break by
> a pfn_valid() change. I found try_ram_remap() in memremap.c that has
> changed behaviour now, but this is explicit for MEMREMAP_WB, so it
> should be fine.
>
> Maybe it might be better to use page_is_ram() in addition to
> pfn_valid() where necessary. This should work now after commit:
>
>  e7cd190385d1 arm64: mark reserved memblock regions explicitly in iomem
>
> I still think pfn_valid() is not the correct use to determine the mem
> attributes for mappings, there are further checks required.
>
> The risk of breaking something with my patch is small and limited only
> to the mapping of efi reserved regions (which is the state of 4.4). If
> something breaks anyway it can easily be fixed by adding more checks
> to pfn_valid() as suggested above.
>

As I noted before, it looks to me like setting CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE is
the correct way to address this. However, doing that does uncover a
bug in move_freepages() where the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() dereferences struct
page fields before the pfn_valid_within() check, so it seems those
need to be switched around.

Robert, you mentioned that CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE seems inappropriate
for sparsemem. Care to elaborate why?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ