linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Allocate memmap from hotadded memory

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, 1 Aug 2019 09:50:29 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rashmica Gupta <rashmica.g@...il.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
        anshuman.khandual@....com, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Allocate memmap from hotadded memory

On 01.08.19 09:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 01-08-19 09:26:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01.08.19 09:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 01-08-19 09:18:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 01.08.19 09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Thu 01-08-19 09:06:40, Rashmica Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 14:08 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue 02-07-19 18:52:01, Rashmica Gupta wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> 2) Why it was designed, what is the goal of the interface?
>>>>>>>>> 3) When it is supposed to be used?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a hardware debugging facility (htm) on some power chips.
>>>>>>>> To use
>>>>>>>> this you need a contiguous portion of memory for the output to be
>>>>>>>> dumped
>>>>>>>> to - and we obviously don't want this memory to be simultaneously
>>>>>>>> used by
>>>>>>>> the kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much memory are we talking about here? Just curious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I've seen a couple of GB per node, so maybe 2-10GB total.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, that is really a lot to keep around unused just in case the
>>>>> debugging is going to be used.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still not sure the current approach of (ab)using memory hotplug is
>>>>> ideal. Sure there is some overlap but you shouldn't really need to
>>>>> offline the required memory range at all. All you need is to isolate the
>>>>> memory from any existing user and the page allocator. Have you checked
>>>>> alloc_contig_range?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rashmica mentioned somewhere in this thread that the virtual mapping
>>>> must not be in place, otherwise the HW might prefetch some of this
>>>> memory, leading to errors with memtrace (which checks that in HW).
>>>
>>> Does anything prevent from unmapping the pfn range from the direct
>>> mapping?
>>
>> I am not sure about the implications of having
>> pfn_valid()/pfn_present()/pfn_online() return true but accessing it
>> results in crashes. (suspend, kdump, whatever other technology touches
>> online memory)
> 
> If those pages are marked as Reserved then nobody should be touching
> them anyway.

Which is not true as I remember we already discussed - I even documented
what PG_reserved can mean after that discussion in page-flags.h (e.g.,
memmap of boot memory) - that's why we introduced PG_offline after all.


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb