linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] /proc/kpagecount: return 0 for special pages that are never mapped

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]

Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:25:34 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     anthony.yznaga@...cle.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        adobriyan@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        miles.chen@...iatek.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /proc/kpagecount: return 0 for special pages that are
 never mapped

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:18:32PM -0800, anthony.yznaga@...cle.com wrote:
> On 12/04/2018 04:48 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:45:26PM -0800, Anthony Yznaga wrote:
> >> +static inline int page_has_type(struct page *page)
> >> +{
> >> +	return (PageType(page, 0) &&
> >> +	       ((page->page_type & PAGE_TYPE_ALL) != PAGE_TYPE_ALL));
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > I think this is a bit complex, and a bit of a pain to update as we add
> > new page types.  How about this?
> >
> > 	return (int)page_type < -128;
> >
> > (I'm open to appropriate #defines to make this more obvious that it's ~0x7F)
> 
> I thought about having this:
> 
> #define PAGE_TYPE_END    0xffffff80
> 
> static int inline page_has_type(struct page *page)
> {
>     return page->page_type > PAGE_TYPE_BASE &&
>            page->page_type < PAGE_TYPE_END;
> }
> 
> But I opted for the additional complexity to avoid more false-positives from
> possibly corrupted values.  I'm certainly fine with a simple approach, though.

The way I'm thinking about this field is that usually it's _mapcount
which is 0xffffffff to represent 0.  We allow a certain small amount
of underflow and still treat it as a mapcount.  We also allow for some
amount of overflow.  So to be utterly precise, what you had there would
have been fine, but for simplicity, I'd rather just do a signed compare
against -128.