linux-kernel - Re: [v2 2/2] device-dax: "Hotremove" persistent memory that is used like normal RAM

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:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:20 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 2/2] device-dax: "Hotremove" persistent memory that is used
 like normal RAM

On 24.04.19 23:34, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>>> +static int
>>>> +offline_memblock_cb(struct memory_block *mem, void *arg)
>>>
>>> Function name suggests that you are actually trying to offline memory
>>> here. Maybe check_memblocks_offline_cb(), just like we have in
>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c.
> 
> Makes sense, I will rename to check_memblocks_offline_cb()
> 
>>>> +     lock_device_hotplug();
>>>> +     rc = walk_memory_range(start_pfn, end_pfn, dev, offline_memblock_cb);
>>>> +     unlock_device_hotplug();
>>>> +
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * If admin has not offlined memory beforehand, we cannot hotremove dax.
>>>> +      * Unfortunately, because unbind will still succeed there is no way for
>>>> +      * user to hotremove dax after this.
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     if (rc)
>>>> +             return rc;
>>>
>>> Can't it happen that there is a race between you checking if memory is
>>> offline and an admin onlining memory again? maybe pull the
>>> remove_memory() into the locked region, using __remove_memory() instead.
>>
>> I think the race is ok. The admin gets to keep the pieces of allowing
>> racing updates to the state and the kernel will keep the range active
>> until the next reboot.
> 
> Thank you for noticing this. I will pull it into locking region.
> Because, __remove_memory() has this code:
> 
> 1868   ret = walk_memory_range(PFN_DOWN(start), PFN_UP(start + size - 1), NULL,
> 1869   check_memblock_offlined_cb);
> 1870   if (ret)
> 1871      BUG();
> 

Yes, also I think you can let go of the device_lock in
check_memblocks_offline_cb, lock_device_hotplug() should take care of
this (see Documentation/core-api/memory-hotplug.rst - "locking internals")

Cheers!

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb