linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] mm: move zone iterator outside of deferred_init

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, 4 May 2020 20:54:33 -0400
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] mm: move zone iterator outside of
 deferred_init_maxorder()

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:10:46PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> So we cannot stop in the middle of a max order block. That shouldn't
> be possible as part of the issue is that the buddy allocator will
> attempt to access the buddy for the page which could cause issues if
> it tries to merge the page with one that is not initialized. So if
> your code supports that then it is definitely broken. That was one of
> the reasons for all of the variable weirdness in
> deferred_init_maxorder. I was going through and making certain that
> while we were initializing the range we were freeing the pages in
> MAX_ORDER aligned blocks and skipping over whatever reserved blocks
> were there. Basically it was handling the case where a single
> MAX_ORDER block could span multiple ranges.
> 
> On x86 this was all pretty straightforward and I don't believe we
> needed the code, but I seem to recall there were some other
> architectures that had more complex memory layouts at the time and
> that was one of the reasons why I had to be careful to wait until I
> had processed the full MAX_ORDER block before I could start freeing
> the pages, otherwise it would start triggering memory corruptions.

Yes, thanks, I missed the case where deferred_grow_zone could stop
mid-max-order-block.

Maybe it's better to leave deferred_init_maxorder alone and adapt the
multithreading to the existing implementation.  That'd mean dealing with the
pesky opaque index somehow, so deferred_init_mem_pfn_range_in_zone() could be
generalized to find it in the thread function based on the start/end range, or
it could be maintained as part of the range that padata passes to the thread
function.

Or, keep this patch but make sure deferred_grow_zone stops on a
max-order-aligned boundary.