linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm, memory_hotplug: Provide argument for the pgprot_t in arch_add

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:   Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:27:12 -0700
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm, memory_hotplug: Provide argument for the pgprot_t
 in arch_add_memory()



On 2019-12-09 2:00 p.m., Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> Can we fiddle that into "struct mhp_restrictions" instead?
>>>
>>> Yes, if that's what people want, it's pretty trivial to do. I chose not
>>> to do it that way because it doesn't get passed down to add_pages() and
>>> it's not really a "restriction". If I don't hear any objections, I will
>>> do that for v2.
>>
>> I do agree that restriction is not the best fit. But I consider prot
>> argument to complicate the API to all users even though it is not really
>> clear whether we are going to have many users really benefiting from it.
>> Look at the vmalloc API and try to find how many users of __vmalloc do
>> not use PAGE_KERNEL.
> 
> At least for this I can foresee at least one more user in the
> pipeline, encrypted memory support for persistent memory mappings that
> will store the key-id in the ptes.
> 
>>
>> So I can see two options. One of them is to add arch_add_memory_prot
>> that would allow to have give and extra prot argument or simply call
>> an arch independent API to change the protection after arch_add_memory.
>> The later sounds like much less code. The memory shouldn't be in use by
>> anybody at that stage yet AFAIU. Maybe there even is an API like that.
> 
> I'm ok with passing it the same way as altmap or a new
> arch_add_memory_prot() my only hangup with after the fact changes is
> the wasted effort it inflicts in the init path for potentially large
> address ranges.

Yes, I'll change the way it's passed in for v2 as that seems to be
generally agreed upon. I can also add a patch to make the name change.

And, yes, given our testing, the wasted effort is quite significant so
I'm against changing the prots after the fact.

Logan