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  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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:27:59 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Cc:     pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        dave.jiang@...el.com, jglisse@...hat.com, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, logang@...tatee.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] mm: Provide kernel parameter to allow disabling
 page init poisoning



On 9/25/2018 3:14 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/25/2018 01:38 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 9/25/2018 1:26 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2018 01:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>> +    vm_debug[=options]    [KNL] Available with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.
>>>> +            May slow down system boot speed, especially when
>>>> +            enabled on systems with a large amount of memory.
>>>> +            All options are enabled by default, and this
>>>> +            interface is meant to allow for selectively
>>>> +            enabling or disabling specific virtual memory
>>>> +            debugging features.
>>>> +
>>>> +            Available options are:
>>>> +              P    Enable page structure init time poisoning
>>>> +              -    Disable all of the above options
>>>
>>> Can we have vm_debug=off for turning things off, please?  That seems to
>>> be pretty standard.
>>
>> No. The simple reason for that is that you had requested this work like
>> the slub_debug. If we are going to do that then each individual letter
>> represents a feature. That is why the "-" represents off. We cannot have
>> letters represent flags, and letters put together into words. For
>> example slub_debug=OFF would turn on sanity checks and turn off
>> debugging for caches that would have causes higher minimum slab orders.
> 
> We don't have to have the same letters mean the same things for both
> options.  We also can live without 'o' and 'f' being valid.  We can
> *also* just say "don't do 'off'" if you want to enable things.

I'm not saying we do either. I would prefer it if we stuck to similar 
behavior though. If we are going to do a slub_debug style parameter then 
we should stick with similar behavior where "-" is used to indicate all 
features off.

> I'd much rather have vm_debug=off do the right thing than have
> per-feature enable/disable.  I know I'll *never* remember vm_debug=- and
> doing it this way will subject me to innumerable trips to Documentation/
> during my few remaining years.
> 
> Surely you can make vm_debug=off happen. :)

I could, but then it is going to confuse people even more. I really feel 
that if we want to do a slub_debug style interface we should use the 
same switch for turning off all the features that they do for slub_debug.

>>> we need to document the defaults.  I think the default is "all
>>> debug options are enabled", but it would be nice to document that.
>>
>> In the description I call out "All options are enabled by default, and this interface is meant to allow for selectively enabling or disabling".
> 
> I found "all options are enabled by default" really confusing.  Maybe:
> 
> "Control debug features which become available when CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.
> When this option is not specified, all debug features are enabled.  Use
> this option enable a specific subset."
> 
> Then, let's actually say what the options do, and what their impact is:
> 
> 	P	Enable 'struct page' poisoning at initialization.
> 		(Slows down boot time).
>

 From my perspective I just don't see how this changes much since it 
conveys the same message I had conveyed in my description. Since it 
looks like Andrew applied the patch feel free to submit your suggestion 
here as a follow-up patch and I would be willing to review/ack it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists