linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix explanation of lower bits in the SPARSEMEM mem

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

Message-ID: <20180124145711.4f3f219d@ezekiel.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:11 +0100
From:   Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
        YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix explanation of lower bits in the SPARSEMEM mem_map
 pointer

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:43:53 +0100
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Fri 19-01-18 14:21:33, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:39:56 +0100
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri 19-01-18 08:09:08, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > > [...]  
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > index 67f2e3c38939..7522a6987595 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > @@ -1166,8 +1166,16 @@ extern unsigned long usemap_size(void);
> > > >  
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * We use the lower bits of the mem_map pointer to store
> > > > - * a little bit of information.  There should be at least
> > > > - * 3 bits here due to 32-bit alignment.
> > > > + * a little bit of information.  The pointer is calculated
> > > > + * as mem_map - section_nr_to_pfn(pnum).  The result is
> > > > + * aligned to the minimum alignment of the two values:
> > > > + *   1. All mem_map arrays are page-aligned.
> > > > + *   2. section_nr_to_pfn() always clears PFN_SECTION_SHIFT
> > > > + *      lowest bits.  PFN_SECTION_SHIFT is arch-specific
> > > > + *      (equal SECTION_SIZE_BITS - PAGE_SHIFT), and the
> > > > + *      worst combination is powerpc with 256k pages,
> > > > + *      which results in PFN_SECTION_SHIFT equal 6.
> > > > + * To sum it up, at least 6 bits are available.
> > > >   */    
> > > 
> > > This is _much_ better indeed. Do you think we can go one step further
> > > and add BUG_ON into the sparse code to guarantee that every mmemap
> > > is indeed aligned properly so that SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT-1 bits are never
> > > used?  
> > 
> > This is easy for the section_nr_to_pfn() part. I'd just add:
> > 
> >   BUILD_BUG_ON(PFN_SECTION_SHIFT < SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT);
> > 
> > But for the mem_map arrays... Do you mean adding a run-time BUG_ON into
> > all allocation paths?
> > 
> > Note that mem_map arrays can be allocated by:
> > 
> >   a) __earlyonly_bootmem_alloc
> >   b) memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid
> >   c) memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw
> >   d) alloc_remap (only arch/tile still has it)
> > 
> > Some allocation paths are in mm/sparse.c, others are
> > mm/sparse-vmemmap.c, so it becomes a bit messy, but since it's
> > a single line in each, it may work.  
> 
> Yeah, it is a mess. So I will leave it up to you. I do not want to block
> your comment update which is a nice improvement. So with or without the
> runtime check feel free to add

Hell, since I have already taken the time to review all the allocation
paths, I can just also add those BUG_ONs. I was just curious if you had
a better idea than spraying them all around the place, but it seems you
don't. ;-)

In short, stay tuned for v2, which is now WIP.

Petr T