linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL

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]

Message-Id: <1586932784-16315-3-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:09:44 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE

Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE memory events to intercept any
possible error conditions during memory offline operation. This includes if
boot memory still got offlined even after an expilicit notifier failure or
if non-boot memory got declined for an offline request. This help improve
memory notifier robustness while also enhancing debug capabilities during
various potential memory offlining error conditions.

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
index a374e4f51a62..48c71d8a29b2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
@@ -1422,13 +1422,55 @@ static int prevent_bootmem_remove_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
 	unsigned long end_pfn = arg->start_pfn + arg->nr_pages;
 	unsigned long pfn = arg->start_pfn;
 
-	if (action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE)
+	if ((action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) && (action != MEM_OFFLINE) &&
+		(action != MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE))
 		return NOTIFY_OK;
 
-	for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
-		ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
-		if (early_section(ms))
-			return NOTIFY_BAD;
+	if (action == MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) {
+		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+			ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
+			if (early_section(ms)) {
+				pr_warn("Boot memory offlining attempted\n");
+				return NOTIFY_BAD;
+			}
+		}
+	} else if (action == MEM_OFFLINE) {
+		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+			ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
+			if (early_section(ms)) {
+
+				/*
+				 * This should have never happened. Boot memory
+				 * offlining should have been prevented by this
+				 * very notifier. Probably some memory removal
+				 * procedure might have changed which would then
+				 * require further debug.
+				 */
+				pr_err("Boot memory offlined\n");
+				return NOTIFY_BAD;
+			}
+		}
+	} else if (action == MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE) {
+		enum offline_failure_reason reason = *(int *)arg->data;
+
+		if (reason != OFFLINE_FAILURE_NOTIFIER)
+			return NOTIFY_OK;
+
+		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+			ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
+			if (early_section(ms))
+				return NOTIFY_OK;
+		}
+
+		/*
+		 * This should have never happened. Non boot memory
+		 * offlining should never have been prevented from
+		 * this notifier. Probably some memory hot removal
+		 * procedure might have changed which would then
+		 * require further debug.
+		 */
+		pr_err("Notifier declined non boot memory offlining\n");
+		return NOTIFY_BAD;
 	}
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
-- 
2.20.1