| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20181204171327.GL26700@rapoport-lnx>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:13:28 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@....edu.cn>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc: prefer memblock APIs returning virtual
address
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:59:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for trying to clean these up.
>
> I think a few could be improved though ...
>
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
> > index 913bfca..fa884ad 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
> > @@ -42,17 +42,15 @@ static void *__init alloc_paca_data(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
> > nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, limit, nid, MEMBLOCK_NONE);
> > - if (!pa) {
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base(size, align, limit);
> > - if (!pa)
> > - panic("cannot allocate paca data");
> > - }
> > + ptr = memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(size, align, MEMBLOCK_LOW_LIMIT,
> > + limit, nid);
> > + if (!ptr)
> > + panic("cannot allocate paca data");
>
> The old code doesn't zero, but two of the three callers of
> alloc_paca_data() *do* zero the whole allocation, so I'd be happy if we
> did it in here instead.
I looked at the callers and couldn't tell if zeroing memory in
init_lppaca() would be ok.
I'll remove the _raw here.
> That would mean we could use memblock_alloc_try_nid() avoiding the need
> to panic() manually.
Actual, my plan was to remove panic() from all memblock_alloc* and make all
callers to check the returned value.
I believe it's cleaner and also allows more meaningful panic messages. Not
mentioning the reduction of memblock code.
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
> > index 236c115..d11ee7f 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
> > @@ -634,19 +634,17 @@ __init u64 ppc64_bolted_size(void)
> >
> > static void *__init alloc_stack(unsigned long limit, int cpu)
> > {
> > - unsigned long pa;
> > + void *ptr;
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(STACK_INT_FRAME_SIZE % 16);
> >
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base_nid(THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE, limit,
> > - early_cpu_to_node(cpu), MEMBLOCK_NONE);
> > - if (!pa) {
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base(THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE, limit);
> > - if (!pa)
> > - panic("cannot allocate stacks");
> > - }
> > + ptr = memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE,
> > + MEMBLOCK_LOW_LIMIT, limit,
> > + early_cpu_to_node(cpu));
> > + if (!ptr)
> > + panic("cannot allocate stacks");
>
> Similarly here, several of the callers zero the stack, and I'd rather
> all of them did.
>
> So again we could use memblock_alloc_try_nid() here and remove the
> memset()s from emergency_stack_init().
Ok
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-radix.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-radix.c
> > index 9311560..415a1eb0 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-radix.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-radix.c
> > @@ -51,24 +51,18 @@ static int native_register_process_table(unsigned long base, unsigned long pg_sz
> > static __ref void *early_alloc_pgtable(unsigned long size, int nid,
> > unsigned long region_start, unsigned long region_end)
> > {
> > - unsigned long pa = 0;
> > + phys_addr_t min_addr = MEMBLOCK_LOW_LIMIT;
> > + phys_addr_t max_addr = MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE;
> > void *pt;
> >
> > - if (region_start || region_end) /* has region hint */
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_range(size, size, region_start, region_end,
> > - MEMBLOCK_NONE);
> > - else if (nid != -1) /* has node hint */
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, size,
> > - MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE,
> > - nid, MEMBLOCK_NONE);
> > + if (region_start)
> > + min_addr = region_start;
> > + if (region_end)
> > + max_addr = region_end;
> >
> > - if (!pa)
> > - pa = memblock_alloc_base(size, size, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE);
> > -
> > - BUG_ON(!pa);
> > -
> > - pt = __va(pa);
> > - memset(pt, 0, size);
> > + pt = memblock_alloc_try_nid_nopanic(size, size, min_addr, max_addr,
> > + nid);
> > + BUG_ON(!pt);
>
> I don't think there's any reason to BUG_ON() here rather than letting
> memblock() call panic() for us. So this could also be memblock_alloc_try_nid().
I'd prefer to panic here.
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/iommu.c
> > index f297152..f62930f 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/iommu.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/iommu.c
> > @@ -208,7 +208,9 @@ static int __init iob_init(struct device_node *dn)
> > pr_debug(" -> %s\n", __func__);
> >
> > /* For 2G space, 8x64 pages (2^21 bytes) is max total l2 size */
> > - iob_l2_base = (u32 *)__va(memblock_alloc_base(1UL<<21, 1UL<<21, 0x80000000));
> > + iob_l2_base = memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(1UL << 21, 1UL << 21,
> > + MEMBLOCK_LOW_LIMIT, 0x80000000,
> > + NUMA_NO_NODE);
>
> This isn't equivalent is it?
>
> memblock_alloc_base() panics on failure but memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw()
> doesn't?
Right, this should be either a memblock function that panic()'s or a call
to panic() if the returned value is NULL.
My preference is for the second variant :)
> Same comment for the other locations that do that conversion.
>
> cheers
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists