linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: avoid hardcoding while checking if cma is enable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <99dd3c24-a864-c0e2-4f02-33a7fbc97bc7@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:24:14 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: avoid hardcoding while checking if cma is
 enable

On 7/9/20 4:45 PM, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Kravetz [mailto:mike.kravetz@...cle.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 6:58 AM
>> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>; Roman
>> Gushchin <guro@...com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; linux-mm@...ck.org;
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>; Jonathan
>> Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: avoid hardcoding while checking if cma
>> is enable
>>
>> Looks like this produced a warning in linux-next.  I suspect it is due to the
>> combination CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE && !CONFIG_CMA.
>>
>> Instead of adding the routine hugetlb_cma_enabled() to scan the hugetlb_cma
>> array, could we just use a boolean as follows?  It can simply be set in
>> hugetlb_cma_reserve when we reserve CMA.
> 
> Maybe just use hugetlb_cma_size? If hugetlb_cma_size is not 0, someone is trying to use
> cma, then bootmem for gigantic pages will be totally ignored according to discussion here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/8/1288
> 
> if somebody sets a wrong hugetlb_cma_size which causes that cma is not reserved. 
> It is the fault of users? We just need to document hugetlb_cma will overwrite bootmem
> reservations?
> 

Yes, I think using hugetlb_cma_size would be sufficient.  If someone
specifies hugetlb_cma=<N> and hugepagesz=<gigantic_page_size> hugepages=<X>
that is wrong.  I don't think we need to worry about 'falling back' to
preallocating X gigantic pages if N is a bad value.  Or, even if the arch
does not support cma allocation.

I am working on a patch to check this earlier in command processing.  That
will make this check unnecessary.  However, that patch is based on new
command line processing code only in 5.8.  So, I think we still need to do
this so that it can be backported to stable.
-- 
Mike Kravetz