linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] powerpc/mm: Fix growth direction for hugepages mmaps with slice

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: <c80d6037-25f9-0b3a-361d-3ddac8c9d7e0@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:38:16 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] powerpc/mm: Fix growth direction for hugepages
 mmaps with slice



On 01/24/2018 03:33 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 24/01/2018 à 10:51, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 01/24/2018 03:09 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 24/01/2018 à 10:35, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Did you try with HUGETLB_MORECORE_HEAPBASE=0x11000000 on PPC64 as I 
>>>>> suggested in my last email on this subject (22/01/2018 9:22) ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes. The test ran fine for me
>>>
>>> You tried with 0x30000000, it works as well on PPC32.
>>>
>>> I'd really like you to try with 0x11000000 which is in the same slice 
>>> as the 10020000-10030000 range.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now that explains is better. But then the requested HEAPBASE was not 
>> free and hence topdown search got an address in the below range.
>>
>> 7efffd000000-7f0000000000 rw-p 00000000 00:0d 1082770 /anon_hugepage 
>> (deleted)
>>
>>
>> The new range allocated is such that there is no scope for expansion 
>> of heap if we do a topdown search. But why should that require us to 
>> change from topdown/bottomup search?
>>
>>
>> 10000000-10010000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 9044312 /home/kvaneesh/a.out
>> 10010000-10020000 r--p 00000000 fc:00 9044312 /home/kvaneesh/a.out
>> 10020000-10030000 rw-p 00010000 fc:00 9044312 /home/kvaneesh/a.out
>> 7efffd000000-7f0000000000 rw-p 00000000 00:0d 1082770 /anon_hugepage 
>> (deleted)
>> 7ffff2d40000-7ffff7d60000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
>> 7ffff7d60000-7ffff7f10000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 9250090 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/libc-2.23.so
>> 7ffff7f10000-7ffff7f20000 r--p 001a0000 fc:00 9250090 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/libc-2.23.so
>> 7ffff7f20000-7ffff7f30000 rw-p 001b0000 fc:00 9250090 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/libc-2.23.so
>> 7ffff7f40000-7ffff7f60000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 10754812 
>> /usr/lib/libhugetlbfs.so.0
>> 7ffff7f60000-7ffff7f70000 r--p 00010000 fc:00 10754812 
>> /usr/lib/libhugetlbfs.so.0
>> 7ffff7f70000-7ffff7f80000 rw-p 00020000 fc:00 10754812 
>> /usr/lib/libhugetlbfs.so.0
>> 7ffff7f80000-7ffff7fa0000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
>> 7ffff7fa0000-7ffff7fe0000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 9250107 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/ld-2.23.so
>> 7ffff7fe0000-7ffff7ff0000 r--p 00030000 fc:00 9250107 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/ld-2.23.so
>> 7ffff7ff0000-7ffff8000000 rw-p 00040000 fc:00 9250107 
>> /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/ld-2.23.so
>> 7ffffffd0000-800000000000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack]
>>
>>
>> For the specific test, one should pass the HEAPBASE value such that it 
>> can be expanded if required isn't it ?
> 
> For the test, yes, it is dumb to pass an unusable HEAPBASE, but what 
> happens in real life:
> * PPC32: No HEAPBASE, hugetlbfs defines a HEAPBASE at sbrk(0) + 
> PAGE_SIZE = 0x10800000 ==> This is in the same slice as already 
> allocated ==> the kernel does as if mmap() had been called with no hint 
> address and allocates something unusable instead.
> * PPC64: No HEAPBASE, hugetlbfs seems to define a HEAPBASE at 
> 100000000000, which doesn't conflict with an already allocated mapping 
> ==> it works.
> 
> Now, when we take the generic case, ie when slice is not activated, when 
> you call mmap() without a hint address, it allocates a suitable address 
> because it does bottom-up. Why do differently with slices ?
> 

IIUC that is largely arch dependent, PPC64 always did topdown search. 
Even for regular non hugetlb mmap it did topdown search. If you set 
legacy mmap we selected bottom up approach. You can check 
arch_pick_mmap_layout() for more details. Now x86 is slightly different.
For the default search if we can't find a mapping address it will try a 
bottomup search. Having said that if you think libhugetlbfs made 
assumptions with respect to 8xx and you don't want to break it make
8xx unmapped area search bottomup.

-aneesh