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: <35689ede-d86e-d692-adae-bc2f1adfb2ab@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 19:13:21 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 05.12.18 18:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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".
> 

Okay, so for this memory we will have
a) vmmaps
b) Memory block devices
c) A sections that is online

So essentially "Gaps in physical memory" which is part of a online section.

This might be a candidate for PG_offline as well.

Thanks for the info, I'll try to find out how such things are handled.
In general I assume this memory has to be readable, because otherwise
kdump and friends would crash already when trying to dump?

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb