linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] mm/hotplug: skip bad PFNs from pfn_to_online

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:21:40 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jmoyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/hotplug: skip bad PFNs from pfn_to_online_page()

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 8:50 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:18 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> > <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/14/19 9:05 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:28:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> >> Can you check with this change on ppc64.  I haven't reviewed this series yet.
> >> >> I did limited testing with change . Before merging this I need to go
> >> >> through the full series again. The vmemmap poplulate on ppc64 needs to
> >> >> handle two translation mode (hash and radix). With respect to vmemap
> >> >> hash doesn't setup a translation in the linux page table. Hence we need
> >> >> to make sure we don't try to setup a mapping for a range which is
> >> >> arleady convered by an existing mapping.
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> >> >> index a4e17a979e45..15c342f0a543 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> >> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> >> >> @@ -88,16 +88,23 @@ static unsigned long __meminit vmemmap_section_start(unsigned long page)
> >> >>    * which overlaps this vmemmap page is initialised then this page is
> >> >>    * initialised already.
> >> >>    */
> >> >> -static int __meminit vmemmap_populated(unsigned long start, int page_size)
> >> >> +static bool __meminit vmemmap_populated(unsigned long start, int page_size)
> >> >>   {
> >> >>      unsigned long end = start + page_size;
> >> >>      start = (unsigned long)(pfn_to_page(vmemmap_section_start(start)));
> >> >>
> >> >> -    for (; start < end; start += (PAGES_PER_SECTION * sizeof(struct page)))
> >> >> -            if (pfn_valid(page_to_pfn((struct page *)start)))
> >> >> -                    return 1;
> >> >> +    for (; start < end; start += (PAGES_PER_SECTION * sizeof(struct page))) {
> >> >>
> >> >> -    return 0;
> >> >> +            struct mem_section *ms;
> >> >> +            unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn((struct page *)start);
> >> >> +
> >> >> +            if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
> >> >> +                    return 0;
> >> >
> >> > I might be missing something, but is this right?
> >> > Having a section_nr above NR_MEM_SECTIONS is invalid, but if we return 0 here,
> >> > vmemmap_populate will go on and populate it.
> >>
> >> I should drop that completely. We should not hit that condition at all.
> >> I will send a final patch once I go through the full patch series making
> >> sure we are not breaking any ppc64 details.
> >>
> >> Wondering why we did the below
> >>
> >> #if defined(ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT)
> >> #define SUBSECTION_SHIFT (ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT)
> >> #elif defined(PMD_SHIFT)
> >> #define SUBSECTION_SHIFT (PMD_SHIFT)
> >> #else
> >> /*
> >>   * Memory hotplug enabled platforms avoid this default because they
> >>   * either define ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT, or PMD_SHIFT is a constant, but
> >>   * this is kept as a backstop to allow compilation on
> >>   * !ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG archs.
> >>   */
> >> #define SUBSECTION_SHIFT 21
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> why not
> >>
> >> #if defined(ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT)
> >> #define SUBSECTION_SHIFT (ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT)
> >> #else
> >> #define SUBSECTION_SHIFT  SECTION_SHIFT
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> ie, if SUBSECTION is not supported by arch we have one sub-section per
> >> section?
> >
> > A couple comments:
> >
> > The only reason ARCH_SUBSECTION_SHIFT exists is because PMD_SHIFT on
> > PowerPC was a non-constant value. However, I'm planning to remove the
> > distinction in the next rev of the patches. Jeff rightly points out
> > that having a variable subsection size per arch will lead to
> > situations where persistent memory namespaces are not portable across
> > archs. So I plan to just make SUBSECTION_SHIFT 21 everywhere.
>
> What is the dependency between subsection and pageblock_order? Shouldn't
> subsection size >= pageblock size?
>
> We do have pageblock size drived from HugeTLB size.

The pageblock size is independent of subsection-size. The pageblock
size is a page-allocator concern, subsections only exist for pages
that are never onlined to the page-allocator.