linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Manual definition of Soft Reserved memory devices

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:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:05:30 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Manual definition of Soft Reserved memory devices

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>
> > Given the current dearth of systems that supply an ACPI HMAT table, and
> > the utility of being able to manually define device-dax "hmem" instances
> > via the efi_fake_mem= option, relax the requirements for creating these
> > devices. Specifically, add an option (numa=nohmat) to optionally disable
> > consideration of the HMAT and update efi_fake_mem= to behave like
> > memmap=nn!ss in terms of delimiting device boundaries.
>
> So, am I correct in deducing that your primary motivation is testing
> without hardware/firmware support?

My primary motivation is making the dax_kmem facility useful to
shipping platforms that have performance differentiated memory, but
may not have EFI-defined soft-reservations / HMAT (or
non-EFI-ACPI-platform equivalent). I'm anticipating HMAT enabled
platforms where the platform firmware policy for what is
soft-reserved, or not, is not the policy the system owner would pick.
I'd also highlight Joao's work [1] (see the TODO section) as an
indication of the demand for custom carving memory resources and
applying the device-dax memory management interface.

> This looks like a bit of a hack to
> me, and I think maybe it would be better to just emulate the HMAT using
> qemu.  I don't have a strong objection, though.

Yeah, qemu emulation does not help when you, the system owner, have a
different use case than what the bare-metal platform-firmware
envisioned for "specific-purpose memory".

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110190313.17144-1-joao.m.martins@oracle.com/