linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow hotpluggable sections to be offlined

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: <7b614485-fe2d-9167-dfc9-d6affdb28c88@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:26:36 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow hotpluggable sections to be offlined



On 10/17/2020 01:04 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> Am 17.10.2020 um 04:03 schrieb Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@...eaurora.org>:
>>
>> On receiving the MEM_GOING_OFFLINE notification, we disallow offlining of
>> any boot memory by checking if section_early or not. With the introduction
>> of SECTION_MARK_HOTPLUGGABLE, allow boot mem sections that are marked as
>> hotpluggable with this bit set to be offlined and removed. This now allows
>> certain boot mem sections to be offlined.
>>
> 
> The check (notifier) is in arm64 code. I don‘t see why you cannot make such decisions completely in arm64 code? Why would you have to mark sections?
> 
> Also, I think I am missing from *where* the code that marks sections removable is even called? Who makes such decisions?

>From the previous patch.

+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mark_memory_hotpluggable);

> 
> This feels wrong. 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@...eaurora.org>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
>> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> index 75df62fea1b6..fb8878698672 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1487,7 +1487,7 @@ static int prevent_bootmem_remove_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
>>
>>    for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
>>        ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
>> -        if (early_section(ms))
>> +        if (early_section(ms) && !removable_section(ms))

Till challenges related to boot memory removal on arm64 platform get
resolved, no portion of boot memory can be offlined. Let alone via a
driver making such decisions.

>>            return NOTIFY_BAD;
>>    }
>>    return NOTIFY_OK;
>> -- 
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>>
> 
>