linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/23] device-dax: Kill dax_kmem

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, 24 Sep 2020 14:26:19 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/23] device-dax: Kill dax_kmem_res

[..]
> > I'm not suggesting to busy the whole "virtio" range, just the portion
> > that's about to be passed to add_memory_driver_managed().
>
> I'm afraid I don't get your point. For virtio-mem:
>
> Before:
>
> 1. Create virtio0 container resource
>
> 2. (somewhen in the future) add_memory_driver_managed()
>  - Create resource (System RAM (virtio_mem)), marking it busy/driver
>    managed
>
> After:
>
> 1. Create virtio0 container resource
>
> 2. (somewhen in the future) Create resource (System RAM (virtio_mem)),
>    marking it busy/driver managed
> 3. add_memory_driver_managed()
>
> Not helpful or simpler IMHO.

The concern I'm trying to address is the theoretical race window and
layering violation in this sequence in the kmem driver:

1/ res = request_mem_region(...);
2/ res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
3/ add_memory_driver_managed();

Between 2/ and 3/ something can race and think that it owns the
region. Do I think it will happen in practice, no, but it's still a
pattern that deserves come cleanup.