linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Only respect mem= parameter during boot stage

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 12:01:41 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Only respect mem= parameter during boot stage

On 09.12.19 11:24, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 09.12.19 11:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 06-12-19 23:05:24, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> In commit 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem=
>>> parameter") a global varialbe global max_mem_size is added to store
>>> the value which is parsed from 'mem= '. This truly stops those
>>> DIMM from being added into system memory during boot.
>>>
>>> However, it also limits the later memory hotplug functionality. Any
>>> memory board can't be hot added any more if its region is beyond the
>>> max_mem_size. System will print error like below:
>>>
>>> [  216.387164] acpi PNP0C80:02: add_memory failed
>>> [  216.389301] acpi PNP0C80:02: acpi_memory_enable_device() error
>>> [  216.392187] acpi PNP0C80:02: Enumeration failure
>>>
>>> >From document of 'mem =' parameter, it should be a restriction during
>>> boot, but not impact the system memory adding/removing after booting.
>>>
>>>    mem=nn[KMG]     [KNL,BOOT] Force usage of a specific amount of memory
>>>
>>> So fix it by also checking if it's during SYSTEM_BOOTING stage when
>>> restrict memory adding. Otherwise, skip the restriction.
>>
>> Could you be more specific about why the boot vs. later hotplug makes
>> any difference? The documentation is explicit about the boot time but
>> considering this seems to be like that since ever I strongly suspect
>> that this is just an omission.
>>
>> Btw. how have you tested the situation fixed by 357b4da50a62?
> 
> I guess he hasn't.
> 
> The backtrace of the problem at that time was:
> 
> [ 8321.876844]  [<ffffffff81019ab9>] dump_trace+0x59/0x340
> [ 8321.882683]  [<ffffffff81019e8a>] show_stack_log_lvl+0xea/0x170
> [ 8321.889298]  [<ffffffff8101ac31>] show_stack+0x21/0x40
> [ 8321.895043]  [<ffffffff81319530>] dump_stack+0x5c/0x7c
> [ 8321.900779]  [<ffffffff8107fbf1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xb0
> [ 8321.907482]  [<ffffffff81009f54>] xen_alloc_pte+0x1d4/0x390
> [ 8321.913718]  [<ffffffff81064950>] 
> pmd_populate_kernel.constprop.6+0x40/0x80
> [ 8321.921498]  [<ffffffff815ef0a8>] phys_pmd_init+0x210/0x255
> [ 8321.927724]  [<ffffffff815ef2c7>] phys_pud_init+0x1da/0x247
> [ 8321.933951]  [<ffffffff815efb81>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0xf5/0x1d4
> [ 8321.941533]  [<ffffffff815ebc7d>] init_memory_mapping+0x18d/0x380
> [ 8321.948341]  [<ffffffff810647f9>] arch_add_memory+0x59/0xf0
> [ 8321.954570]  [<ffffffff815eceed>] add_memory_resource+0x8d/0x160
> [ 8321.961283]  [<ffffffff815ecff2>] add_memory+0x32/0xf0
> [ 8321.967025]  [<ffffffff813e1c91>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x131/0x2e0
> [ 8321.974128]  [<ffffffff8139f752>] acpi_bus_attach+0xe2/0x190
> [ 8321.980453]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
> [ 8321.986778]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
> [ 8321.993103]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
> [ 8321.999428]  [<ffffffff813a1157>] acpi_bus_scan+0x37/0x70
> [ 8322.005461]  [<ffffffff81fba955>] acpi_scan_init+0x77/0x1b4
> [ 8322.011690]  [<ffffffff81fba70c>] acpi_init+0x297/0x2b3
> [ 8322.017530]  [<ffffffff8100213a>] do_one_initcall+0xca/0x1f0
> [ 8322.023855]  [<ffffffff81f74266>] kernel_init_freeable+0x194/0x226
> [ 8322.030760]  [<ffffffff815eb1ba>] kernel_init+0xa/0xe0
> [ 8322.036503]  [<ffffffff815f7bc5>] ret_from_fork+0x55/0x80
> 
> So this patch would break it again.
> 
> I'd recommend ...
> 
>>
>>> Fixes: 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter")
>>> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> index 55ac23ef11c1..5466a0a00901 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static struct resource *register_memory_resource(u64 start, u64 size)
>>>   	unsigned long flags =  IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>>>   	char *resource_name = "System RAM";
>>>   
>>> -	if (start + size > max_mem_size)
>>> +	if (start + size > max_mem_size && system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
> 
> ... changing this to: ... && system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING

I think we usually use system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb