linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] memory_hotplug: Add a bounds check to check_hotplug_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190924114503.GK23050@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:45:03 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alastair D'Silva <alastair@...ilva.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] memory_hotplug: Add a bounds check to
 check_hotplug_memory_range()

On Tue 24-09-19 11:13:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.19 11:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 24-09-19 11:31:05, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 14:25 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >>> This will result in a silent failure (unlike misaligned case). Is
> >>> this
> >>> what we want?
> >>
> >> Good point - I guess it comes down to, is there anything we expect an
> >> end user to do about it? I'm not sure there is, in which case the bad
> >> RC, which is reported up every call chain that I can see, should be
> >> sufficient.
> > 
> > It seems like a clear HW/platform bug to me. And that should better be
> > reported loudly to the log to make sure people do complain to their FW
> > friends and have it fixed.
> > 
> 
> I don't agree in virtual environment. On s390x, MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS is
> configurable. For example, if you have paravirtualized memory hotplug
> (e.g., virtio-mem), you could add memory to the system that violates
> this constraint.

What happens if that is the case. Does the machine change the
configuration in runtime or it needs a reboot?

Anyway, seeing this to be the case in the log would help in whatever
action is necessary to deal with the issue, right?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs