linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/sparsemem: pfn_to_page is not valid yet on SPARSEMEM

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, 6 Feb 2020 14:55:41 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, osalvador@...e.de,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/sparsemem: pfn_to_page is not valid yet on SPARSEMEM

On 06.02.20 14:50, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/06/20 at 02:28pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 06.02.20 13:53, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> When we use SPARSEMEM instead of SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, pfn_to_page()
>>> doesn't work before sparse_init_one_section() is called. This leads to a
>>> crash when hotplug memory.
>>>
>>> We should use memmap as it did.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
>>> CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>>  mm/sparse.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
>>> index 5a8599041a2a..2efb24ff8f96 100644
>>> --- a/mm/sparse.c
>>> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
>>> @@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ int __meminit sparse_add_section(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>>  	 * Poison uninitialized struct pages in order to catch invalid flags
>>>  	 * combinations.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	page_init_poison(pfn_to_page(start_pfn), sizeof(struct page) * nr_pages);
>>> +	page_init_poison(memmap, sizeof(struct page) * nr_pages);
>>
>> If you add sub-sections that don't fall onto the start of the section,
>>
>> pfn_to_page(start_pfn) != memmap
>>
>> and your patch would break that under SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP if I am not wrong.
> 
> It returns the pfn_to_page(pfn) from __populate_section_memmap() and
> assign to memmap in vmemmap case, how come it breaks anything. Correct
> me if I was wrong.

I'm sorry, I can't follow :) Can you elaborate?

Was your comment targeted at why the old code cannot be broken or why
this patch cannot be broken?


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb