linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/memory-hotplug: allow memory resources to be children

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:   Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:26:18 -0500
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, dave@...1.net,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com, zwisler@...nel.org,
        vishal.l.verma@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, ying.huang@...el.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
        bp@...e.de, bhelgaas@...gle.com, baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com,
        tiwai@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/memory-hotplug: allow memory resources to be
 children

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:58:54AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/16/19 11:16 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >> We *could* also simply truncate the existing top-level
> >> "Persistent Memory" resource and take over the released address
> >> space.  But, this means that if we ever decide to hot-unplug the
> >> "RAM" and give it back, we need to recreate the original setup,
> >> which may mean going back to the BIOS tables.
> >>
> >> This should have no real effect on the existing collision
> >> detection because the areas that truly conflict should be marked
> >> IORESOURCE_BUSY.
> > 
> > Still i am worrying that this might allow device private to register
> > itself as a child of some un-busy resource as this patch obviously
> > change the behavior of register_memory_resource()
> > 
> > What about instead explicitly providing parent resource to add_memory()
> > and then to register_memory_resource() so if it is provided as an
> > argument (!NULL) then you can __request_region(arg_res, ...) otherwise
> > you keep existing code intact ?
> 
> We don't have the locking to do this, do we?  For instance, all the
> locking is done below register_memory_resource(), so any previous
> resource lookup is invalid by the time we get to register_memory_resource().

Yeah you are right, maybe just a bool then ? bool as_child

Cheers,
Jérôme