| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 08:49:59 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with
kernel_end
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> With kaslr the kernel image is placed at a random place, so starting
> the bottom-up allocation with the kernel_end can result in an
> allocation failure and a warning like this one:
>
> [ 0.002920] hugetlb_cma: reserve 2048 MiB, up to 2048 MiB per node
> [ 0.002921] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 0.002922] memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected
> [ 0.002937] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:332 memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a
> [ 0.002937] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.002939] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.10.0+ #1169
> [ 0.002940] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014
> [ 0.002942] RIP: 0010:memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a
> [ 0.002944] Code: e9 6d ff ff ff 48 85 c0 0f 85 da 00 00 00 80 3d 9b 35 df 00 00 75 15 48 c7 c7 c0 75 59 88 c6 05 8b 35 df 00 01 e8 25 8a fa ff <0f> 0b 48 c7 44 24 20 ff ff ff ff 44 89 e6 44 89 ea 48 c7 c1 70 5c
> [ 0.002945] RSP: 0000:ffffffff88803d18 EFLAGS: 00010086 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> [ 0.002947] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000240000000 RCX: 00000000ffffdfff
> [ 0.002948] RDX: 00000000ffffdfff RSI: 00000000ffffffea RDI: 0000000000000046
> [ 0.002948] RBP: 0000000100000000 R08: ffffffff88922788 R09: 0000000000009ffb
> [ 0.002949] R10: 00000000ffffe000 R11: 3fffffffffffffff R12: 0000000000000000
> [ 0.002950] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000080000000 R15: 00000001fb42c000
> [ 0.002952] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff88f71000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 0.002953] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 0.002954] CR2: ffffa080fb401000 CR3: 00000001fa80a000 CR4: 00000000000406b0
> [ 0.002956] Call Trace:
> [ 0.002961] ? memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8d/0x11e
> [ 0.002963] ? cma_declare_contiguous_nid+0x2c4/0x38c
> [ 0.002964] ? hugetlb_cma_reserve+0xdc/0x128
> [ 0.002968] ? flush_tlb_one_kernel+0xc/0x20
> [ 0.002969] ? native_set_fixmap+0x82/0xd0
> [ 0.002971] ? flat_get_apic_id+0x5/0x10
> [ 0.002973] ? register_lapic_address+0x8e/0x97
> [ 0.002975] ? setup_arch+0x8a5/0xc3f
> [ 0.002978] ? start_kernel+0x66/0x547
> [ 0.002980] ? load_ucode_bsp+0x4c/0xcd
> [ 0.002982] ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb
> [ 0.002986] random: get_random_bytes called from __warn+0xab/0x110 with crng_init=0
> [ 0.002988] ---[ end trace f151227d0b39be70 ]---
>
> At the same time, the kernel image is protected with memblock_reserve(),
> so we can just start searching at PAGE_SIZE. In this case the
> bottom-up allocation has the same chances to success as a top-down
> allocation, so there is no reason to fallback in the case of a
> failure. All together it simplifies the logic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 49 ++++++-------------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index b68ee86788af..10bd7d1ef0f4 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -275,14 +275,6 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
> *
> * Find @size free area aligned to @align in the specified range and node.
> *
> - * When allocation direction is bottom-up, the @start should be greater
> - * than the end of the kernel image. Otherwise, it will be trimmed. The
> - * reason is that we want the bottom-up allocation just near the kernel
> - * image so it is highly likely that the allocated memory and the kernel
> - * will reside in the same node.
> - *
> - * If bottom-up allocation failed, will try to allocate memory top-down.
> - *
> * Return:
> * Found address on success, 0 on failure.
> */
> @@ -291,8 +283,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
> phys_addr_t end, int nid,
> enum memblock_flags flags)
> {
> - phys_addr_t kernel_end, ret;
> -
> /* pump up @end */
> if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE ||
> end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_KASAN)
> @@ -301,40 +291,13 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
> /* avoid allocating the first page */
> start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
> end = max(start, end);
> - kernel_end = __pa_symbol(_end);
> -
> - /*
> - * try bottom-up allocation only when bottom-up mode
> - * is set and @end is above the kernel image.
> - */
> - if (memblock_bottom_up() && end > kernel_end) {
> - phys_addr_t bottom_up_start;
> -
> - /* make sure we will allocate above the kernel */
> - bottom_up_start = max(start, kernel_end);
>
> - /* ok, try bottom-up allocation first */
> - ret = __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(bottom_up_start, end,
> - size, align, nid, flags);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - /*
> - * we always limit bottom-up allocation above the kernel,
> - * but top-down allocation doesn't have the limit, so
> - * retrying top-down allocation may succeed when bottom-up
> - * allocation failed.
> - *
> - * bottom-up allocation is expected to be fail very rarely,
> - * so we use WARN_ONCE() here to see the stack trace if
> - * fail happens.
> - */
> - WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE),
> - "memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected\n");
> - }
> -
> - return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align, nid,
> - flags);
> + if (memblock_bottom_up())
> + return __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(start, end, size, align,
> + nid, flags);
> + else
> + return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align,
> + nid, flags);
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.26.2
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists