linux-kernel - Re: your mail

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:10:46 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        qiuxishi@...wei.com, Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>,
        slaoub@...il.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: your mail

On Thu 27-04-17 11:08:38, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:19:06AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > > You are trying to change a semantic of something that has a well defined
> > > > > > meaning. I disagree that we should change it. It might sound like a
> > > > > > simpler thing to do because pfn walkers will have to be checked but what
> > > > > > you are proposing is conflating two different things together.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think that *I* try to change the semantic of pfn_valid().
> > > > > It would be original semantic of pfn_valid().
> > > > > 
> > > > > "If pfn_valid() returns true, we can get proper struct page and the
> > > > > zone information,"
> > > > 
> > > > I do not see any guarantee about the zone information anywhere. In fact
> > > > this is not true with the original implementation as I've tried to
> > > > explain already. We do have new pages associated with a zone but that
> > > > association might change during the online phase. So you cannot really
> > > > rely on that information until the page is online. There is no real
> > > > change in that regards after my rework.
> > > 
> > > I know that what you did doesn't change thing much. What I try to say
> > > is that previous implementation related to pfn_valid() in hotplug is
> > > wrong. Please do not assume that hotplug implementation is correct and
> > > other pfn_valid() users are incorrect. There is no design document so
> > > I'm not sure which one is correct but assumption that pfn_valid() user
> > > can access whole the struct page information makes much sense to me.
> > 
> > Not really. E.g. ZONE_DEVICE pages are never online AFAIK. I believe we
> > still need pfn_valid to work for those pfns. Really, pfn_valid has a
> 
> It's really contrary example to your insist. They requires not only
> struct page but also other information, especially, the zone index.
> They checks zone idx to know whether this page is for ZONE_DEVICE or not.

Yes and they guarantee this association is true. Without memory onlining
though. This memory is never online for anybody who is asking.

[...]

> I think that I did my best to explain my reasoning. It seems that we
> cannot agree with each other so it's better for some others to express
> their opinion to this problem. I will stop this discussion from now
> on.

I _do_ appreciate your feedback and if the general consensus is to
modify pfn_valid I can go that direction but my gut feeling tells me
that conflating "existing struct page" test and "fully online and
initialized" one is a wrong thing to do.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs