linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add memory hotplug support

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: <b6a21681-beee-4083-89ce-cdfdbb958cbf@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:21:24 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
        cyrilc@...inx.com, james.morse@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add memory hotplug support

On 11/12/2018 16:36, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:29:01PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Wire up the basic support for hot-adding memory. Since memory hotplug
>> is fairly tightly coupled to sparsemem, we tweak pfn_valid() to also
>> cross-check the presence of a section in the manner of the generic
>> implementation, before falling back to memblock to check for no-map
>> regions within a present section as before. By having arch_add_memory(()
>> create the linear mapping first, this then makes everything work in the
>> way that __add_section() expects.
>>
>> We expect hotplug to be ACPI-driven, so the swapper_pg_dir updates
>> should be safe from races by virtue of the global device hotplug lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>> ---
>>
>> Looks like I'm not going to have the whole pte_devmap story figured out
>> in time to land any ZONE_DEVICE support this cycle, but since this patch
>> also stands alone as a complete feature (and has ended up remarkably
>> simple and self-contained), I hope we might consider getting it merged
>> on its own merit.
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>   arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  3 +++
>>   arch/arm64/mm/init.c |  8 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c  | 12 ++++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> index 6d2b25f51bb3..7b855ae45747 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> @@ -261,6 +261,9 @@ config ZONE_DMA32
>>   config HAVE_GENERIC_GUP
>>   	def_bool y
>>   
>> +config ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>> +	def_bool y
>> +
>>   config SMP
>>   	def_bool y
>>   
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> index 2983e0fc1786..82e0b08f2e31 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> @@ -291,6 +291,14 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
>>   
>>   	if ((addr >> PAGE_SHIFT) != pfn)
>>   		return 0;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>> +	if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!valid_section(__nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn))))
>> +		return 0;
> 
> I'm a bit nervous about the call to __nr_to_section() here. How do we
> ensure that the section number we're passing stays within the bounds of
> the mem_section array?

The same way every other sparsemem user (apart from arch/arm) does, I 
guess - this is literally a copy-paste of the generic pfn_valid() 
implementation :/

Given the implementation of __nr_to_section() respective of how 
memory_present() and sparse_index_init() set up mem_section in the first 
place, I can't see how there can be a problem. You did see the bit 4 
lines above, right?

>> +#endif
>>   	return memblock_is_map_memory(addr);
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_valid);
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> index e1b2d58a311a..22379a74d289 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1044,3 +1044,15 @@ int pud_free_pmd_page(pud_t *pudp, unsigned long addr)
>>   	pmd_free(NULL, table);
>>   	return 1;
>>   }
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>> +int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, struct vmem_altmap *altmap,
>> +		    bool want_memblock)
>> +{
>> +	__create_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir, start, __phys_to_virt(start),
>> +			     size, PAGE_KERNEL, pgd_pgtable_alloc, 0);
>> +
>> +	return __add_pages(nid, start >> PAGE_SHIFT, size >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>> +			   altmap, want_memblock);
>> +}
> 
> If we're mapping the new memory into the linear map, shouldn't we be
> respecting rodata_full and debug page alloc by forcing page granularity
> and tweaking the permissions?

Bah, James mentioned debug_pagealloc long ago, and I did have a slight 
nagging feeling that I was still missing something - yes, I need to fix 
the flags for that case. I'm not sure about rodata_full (do you mean 
STRICT_KERNEL_RWX?) since a section being added here won't contain 
kernel text nor data, and I can't seem to find anywhere that rodata 
options affect the linear mapping of plain free RAM.

Robin.