linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size

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: <CAPcyv4jQ7eAbEaUUP0R_JFKRADGU1kXhMd_Q=Gw5+1Xki5WYjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:02:45 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/1/2018 2:14 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Use kvzalloc() to bypass the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE limit of label transfer
> > operations. Given the expense of calling into firmware, maximize the
> > amount of label data we transfer per call to be up to the total label
> > space if allowed by the firmware, or 256K whichever is smaller.
> >
> > Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > * clamp the max allocation size at 256K in case large label areas with
> >    unlimited transfer sizes appear in the future.
> >
> >   drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c       |   14 ++++++++------
> >   tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c |    2 +-
> >   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > index 863cabc35215..3616e2e47788 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > @@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
> >       if (!ndd->data)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!cmd)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
>
> So I wouldn't use 256K as the limit, maybe 256K minus the sizeof(*cmd).
> Otherwise you are still allocating additional memory to take care of
> that little trailing bit that is being added.

Does it matter? This is a slow / infrequently used path and I do don't
see the practical difference of 256K vs slightly less than 256K.

> > @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
> >               memcpy(ndd->data + offset, cmd->out_buf, cmd->in_length);
> >       }
> >       dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "len: %zu rc: %d\n", offset, rc);
> > -     kfree(cmd);
> > +     kvfree(cmd);
> >
> >       return rc;
> >   }
> > @@ -157,9 +158,10 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
> >       if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
> >               return -ENXIO;
> >
> > -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, len);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
> >       max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, len);
> > +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!cmd)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
>
> For the set operation I am not sure you have any code that is going to
> be updating things multiple labels at a time. From what I can tell the
> largest set call you ever make is probably for a namespace index and
> odds are that will only ever be 256 or 512 bytes.

Inside the kernel, true, but we do perform large sets from userspace.
That said I don't see why this low level routine should encode
layering violation knowledge of how it might be used.

> Also the limitations here could probably use some additional clean-up.
> For example you have a check for offset + len > config_size above this
> min_t calls. As such it should be impossible for length to ever be
> greater than config_size so you shouldn't need to test for the min of
> both and could just use the min of len versus the max_xfer.

Again that's a case of this leaf routine encoding assumptions about
how it might be used. I'd rather be pedantic since this is not a hot
path.