linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG

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: <20181205173201.GA11646@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:32:01 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>,
        Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
        yi.z.zhang@...ux.intel.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:05:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not even
> >> exist". If there is a user, we should document it. E.g. for balloon
> >> drivers we now use PG_offline to indicate that a page might currently
> >> not be backed by memory in the hypervisor. And that is independent from
> >> PG_reserved.
> > 
> > I think you're confused by the meaning of "some of them might not even
> > exist".  What this means is that there might not be memory there; maybe
> > writes to that memory will be discarded, or maybe they'll cause a machine
> > check.  Maybe reads will return ~0, or 0, or cause a machine check.
> > We just don't know what's there, and we shouldn't try touching the memory.
> 
> If there are users, let's document it. And I need more details for that :)
> 
> 1. machine check: if there is a HW error, we set PG_hwpoison (except
> ia64 MCA, see the list)
> 
> 2. Writes to that memory will be discarded
> 
> Who is the user of that? When will we have such pages right now?
> 
> 3. Reads will return ~0, / 0?
> 
> I think this is a special case of e.g. x86? But where do we have that,
> are there any user?

When there are gaps in the physical memory.  As in, if you put that
physical address on the bus (or in a packet), no device will respond
to it.  Look:

00000000-00000fff : Reserved
00001000-00057fff : System RAM
00058000-00058fff : Reserved
00059000-0009dfff : System RAM
0009e000-000fffff : Reserved

Those examples I gave are examples of how various different architectures
respond to "no device responded to this memory access".