linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 3/3] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190917150852.GC7305@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:08:53 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, mhocko@...e.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, david@...hat.com, cai@....pw,
        logang@...tatee.com, cpandya@...eaurora.org, arunks@...eaurora.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        osalvador@...e.de, ard.biesheuvel@....com, steve.capper@....com,
        broonie@...nel.org, valentin.schneider@....com,
        Robin.Murphy@....com, steven.price@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 3/3] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:06:11AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 09/13/2019 03:39 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:28:01AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> The problem (race) is not because of the inability to deal with partially
> >> filled table. We can handle that correctly as explained below [1]. The
> >> problem is with inadequate kernel page table locking during vmalloc()
> >> which might be accessing intermediate kernel page table pointers which is
> >> being freed with free_empty_tables() concurrently. Hence we cannot free
> >> any page table page which can ever have entries from vmalloc() range.
> > 
> > The way you deal with the partially filled table in this patch is to
> > avoid freeing if there is a non-empty entry (!p*d_none()). This is what
> > causes the race with vmalloc. If you simply avoid freeing a pmd page,
> > for example, if the range floor/ceiling is not aligned to PUD_SIZE,
> > irrespective of whether the other entries are empty or not, you
> > shouldn't have this problem. You do free the pte page if the range is
[...]
> > We may have some pgtable pages not freed at both ends of the range
> > (maximum 6 in total) but I don't really see this an issue. They could be
> > reused if something else gets mapped in that range.
> 
> I assume that the number 6 for maximum page possibility came from
> 
> (floor edge + ceiling edge) * (PTE table + PMD table + PUD table)

Yes.

> >> Though not completely sure, whether I really understood the suggestion above
> >> with respect to the floor-ceiling mechanism as in free_pgd_range(). Are you
> >> suggesting that we should only attempt to free up those vmemmap range page
> >> table pages which *definitely* could never overlap with vmalloc by working
> >> on a modified (i.e cut down with floor-ceiling while avoiding vmalloc range
> >> at each level) vmemmap range instead ?
> > 
> > You can ignore the overlap check altogether, only free the page tables
> > with floor/ceiling set to the start/size passed to arch_remove_memory()
> > and vmemmap_free().
> 
> Wondering if it will be better to use [VMEMMAP_START - VMEMMAP_END] and
> [PAGE_OFFSET - PAGE_END] as floor/ceiling respectively with vmemmap_free()
> and arch_remove_memory(). Not only it is safe to free all page table pages
> which span over these maximum possible mapping range but also it reduces
> the risk for alignment related wastage.

That's indeed better. You pass the floor/ceiling as the enclosing range
and start/end as the actual range to unmap is. We avoid the potential
"leak" around the edges when falling within the floor/ceiling range (I
think that's close to what free_pgd_range() does).

> >> This can be one restrictive version of the function
> >> free_empty_tables() called in case there is an overlap. So we will
> >> maintain two versions for free_empty_tables(). Please correct me if
> >> any the above assumptions or understanding is wrong.
> > 
> > I'd rather have a single version of free_empty_tables(). As I said
> > above, the only downside is that a partially filled pgtable page would
> > not be freed even though the other entries are empty.
> 
> Sure. Also practically the limitation will be applicable only for vmemmap
> mapping but not for linear mappings where the chances of overlap might be
> negligible as it covers half kernel virtual address space.

If you have a common set of functions, it doesn't heart to pass the
correct floor/ceiling in both cases.

-- 
Catalin