| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:48:29 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [LKP] efad4e475c [ 40.308255] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 18-02-19 18:48:14, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:22:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Thinking about it some more, is it possible that we are overflowing by 1
> > > here?
> >
> > Looks like that, the end_pfn is actually the first pfn in the next section.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. I guess it also exaplains why nobody has
> noticed this off-by-one. Most people seem to use VMEMMAP SPARSE model
> and we are safe there.
>
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > index 124e794867c5..6618b9d3e53a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > @@ -1234,10 +1234,10 @@ bool is_mem_section_removable(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> > > {
> > > struct page *page = pfn_to_page(start_pfn);
> > > unsigned long end_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages, zone_end_pfn(page_zone(page)));
> > > - struct page *end_page = pfn_to_page(end_pfn);
> > > + struct page *end_page = pfn_to_page(end_pfn - 1);
> > >
> > > /* Check the starting page of each pageblock within the range */
> > > - for (; page < end_page; page = next_active_pageblock(page)) {
> > > + for (; page <= end_page; page = next_active_pageblock(page)) {
> > > if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(page))
> > > return false;
> > > cond_resched();
> >
> > Works with your fix, but I think mine is more intuitive ;-)
>
> I would rather go and rework this to pfns. What about this instead.
> Slightly larger but arguably cleared code?
Yeah, this is clearer.
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index 124e794867c5..a799a0bdbf34 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1188,11 +1188,13 @@ static inline int pageblock_free(struct page *page)
> return PageBuddy(page) && page_order(page) >= pageblock_order;
> }
>
> -/* Return the start of the next active pageblock after a given page */
> -static struct page *next_active_pageblock(struct page *page)
> +/* Return the pfn of the start of the next active pageblock after a given pfn */
> +static unsigned long next_active_pageblock(unsigned long pfn)
> {
> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +
> /* Ensure the starting page is pageblock-aligned */
> - BUG_ON(page_to_pfn(page) & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1));
> + BUG_ON(pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1));
>
> /* If the entire pageblock is free, move to the end of free page */
> if (pageblock_free(page)) {
> @@ -1200,16 +1202,16 @@ static struct page *next_active_pageblock(struct page *page)
> /* be careful. we don't have locks, page_order can be changed.*/
> order = page_order(page);
> if ((order < MAX_ORDER) && (order >= pageblock_order))
> - return page + (1 << order);
> + return pfn + (1 << order);
> }
>
> - return page + pageblock_nr_pages;
> + return pfn + pageblock_nr_pages;
> }
>
> -static bool is_pageblock_removable_nolock(struct page *page)
> +static bool is_pageblock_removable_nolock(unsigned long pfn)
> {
> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> struct zone *zone;
> - unsigned long pfn;
>
> /*
> * We have to be careful here because we are iterating over memory
> @@ -1232,13 +1234,14 @@ static bool is_pageblock_removable_nolock(struct page *page)
> /* Checks if this range of memory is likely to be hot-removable. */
> bool is_mem_section_removable(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> {
> - struct page *page = pfn_to_page(start_pfn);
> - unsigned long end_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages, zone_end_pfn(page_zone(page)));
> - struct page *end_page = pfn_to_page(end_pfn);
> + unsigned long end_pfn;
> +
> + end_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages,
> + zone_end_pfn(page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn))));
>
> /* Check the starting page of each pageblock within the range */
> - for (; page < end_page; page = next_active_pageblock(page)) {
> - if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(page))
> + for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn = next_active_pageblock(start_pfn)) {
> + if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(start_pfn))
> return false;
> cond_resched();
> }
With this on top the loop even fits into 80-chars ;-)
diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
index 9cc42f3..9981ca7 100644
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -1234,13 +1234,13 @@ static bool is_pageblock_removable_nolock(unsigned long pfn)
/* Checks if this range of memory is likely to be hot-removable. */
bool is_mem_section_removable(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
{
- unsigned long end_pfn;
+ unsigned long end_pfn, pfn;
end_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages,
zone_end_pfn(page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn))));
/* Check the starting page of each pageblock within the range */
- for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn = next_active_pageblock(start_pfn)) {
+ for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn = next_active_pageblock(pfn)) {
if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(start_pfn))
return false;
cond_resched();
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists