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]
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:07:57 -0400
From:   Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using
 the ZONE_MOVABLE

On 08/31/2017 07:32 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/31/2017 03:40 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:16:18AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2017 08:36 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
>>>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>>>>
>>>> 0. History
>>>>
>>>> This patchset is the follow-up of the discussion about the
>>>> "Introduce ZONE_CMA (v7)" [1]. Please reference it if more information
>>>> is needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]: lkml.kernel.org/r/1491880640-9944-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
>>>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/15/623
>>>> [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg100562.html
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>>
>>> The previous version has introduced ZONE_CMA, so I would think switching
>>> to ZONE_MOVABLE is enough to drop previous reviews. Perhaps most of the
>>> code involved is basically the same, though?
>>
>> Yes, most of the code involved is the same. I considered to drop
>> previous review tags but most of the code and concept is the same so I
>> decide to keep review tags. I should mention it in cover-letter but I
>> forgot to mention it. Sorry about that.
>>
>>> Anyway I checked the current patch and did some basic tests with qemu,
>>> so you can keep my ack.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, if we dropped NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES, could we also drop MIGRATE_CMA and
>>> related hooks? Is that counter really that useful as it works right now?
>>> It will decrease both by CMA allocations (which has to be explicitly
>>> freed) and by movable allocations (which can be migrated). What if only
>>> CMA alloc/release touched it?
>>
>> I think that NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES would not be as useful as previous. We
>> can remove it.
>>
>> However, removing MIGRATE_CMA has a problem. There is an usecase to
>> check if the page comes from the CMA area or not. See
>> check_page_span() in mm/usercopy.c. I can implement it differently by
>> iterating whole CMA area and finding the match, but I'm not sure it's
>> performance effect. I guess that it would be marginal.
> 
> +CC Kees Cook
> 
> Hmm, seems like this check is to make sure we don't copy from/to parts
> of kernel memory we're not supposed to? Then I believe checking that
> pages are in ZONE_MOVABLE should then give the same guarantees as
> MIGRATE_CMA.
> 

The check is to make sure we are copying only to a single page unless
that page is allocated with __GFP_COMP. CMA needs extra checks since
its allocations have nothing to do with compound page. Checking
ZONE_MOVABLE might cause us to miss some cases of copying to vanilla
ZONE_MOVABLE pages.

> BTW the comment says "Reject if range is entirely either Reserved or
> CMA" but the code does the opposite thing. I assume the comment is wrong?
> 

Yes, I think that needs clarification.

Thanks,
Laura

Powered by blists - more mailing lists