linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Teach pfn_to_online_page() about ZONE

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: <CAPcyv4jJdpfnhBa2H26Wdz6a6+2z92UqaGcf_vAH_bScKXe6sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:52:05 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Teach pfn_to_online_page() about ZONE_DEVICE section collisions

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:44 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 12.01.21 10:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:16 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>> Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
> >>>>> actual argument why the pmem reserved space cannot be fully initialized.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I'm still hoping Dan can clarify that.
> >>>
> >>> Complexity and effective utility (once pfn_to_online_page() is fixed)
> >>> are the roadblocks in my mind. The altmap is there to allow for PMEM
> >>> capacity to be used as memmap space, so there would need to be code to
> >>> break that circular dependency and allocate a memmap for the metadata
> >>> space from DRAM and the rest of the memmap space for the data capacity
> >>> from pmem itself. That memmap-for-pmem-metadata will still represent
> >>> offline pages. So once pfn_to_online_page() is fixed, what pfn-walker
> >>> is going to be doing pfn_to_page() on PMEM metadata? Secondly, there
> >>
> >> Assume I do
> >>
> >> pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn, NULL);
> >> if (pgmap)
> >>         return pfn_to_page(pfn);
> >> return NULL;
> >>
> >> on a random pfn because I want to inspect ZONE_DEVICE PFNs.
> >
> > I keep getting hung up on the motivation to do random pfn inspection?
> >
> > The problems we have found to date have required different solutions.
> > The KVM bug didn't use get_dev_pagemap() to inspect the pfn because it
> > could rely on the fact that the page already had an elevated reference
> > count. The get_user_pages() path only looks up ZONE_DEVICE pfns when
> > it see {pte,pmd,pud}_devmap set in the page table entry. pfn walkers
> > have been a problem, but with pfn_to_online_page() fixed what is the
> > remaining motivation to inspect ZONE_DEVICE pfns?
>
> 1) Let's assume we want to implement zone shrinking
> (remove_pfn_range_from_zone()->shrink_zone_span()) for ZONE_DEVICE at
> some point.

I don't expect that will ever be something the kernel will want to do
given the association of pgmap to the lifetime of a given device
configuration. The mechanism to mutate a ZONE_DEVICE mapping is unbind
device, reconfigure device, bind device to establish a new ZONE_DEVICE
mapping.

>
> A simple approach would be going via get_dev_pagemap(pfn,
> NULL)->pfn_to_page(pfn), checking for the zone.
>
> If that's not possible, then extending dev_pagemap (e.g., indicating the
> nid) might also work (unless there is another way to get the nid).
>
>
> 2) Let's take a look at mm/memory-failure.c:memory_failure_dev_pagemap()
>
> IIUC, we might end up doing pfn_to_page(pfn) on a pfn in the reserved
> altmap space, so one with an uninitialized memmap.
>
> E.g., in dax_lock_page() we access page->mapping, which might just be
> garbage. dax_mapping() will de-reference garbage.
>
> Most probably I am missing something here.

No you're not, this is a real issue because get_dev_pagemap() is valid
for the metadata space. I need to add a patch to validate
get_dev_pagemap() vs the pfns that are data vs metadata.


>
>
>
> Question is: what are the expectations regarding the memmap if
> get_dev_pagemap() succeeded.
>
> I'm fine documenting that "get_dev_pagemap() does not guarantee that the
> "struct page" returned by pfn_to_page() was initialized and can safely
> be used. E.g., it might be a pfn in the reserved altmap space, for which
> the memmap is never initialized. Accessing it might be dangerous.".
>
> Then, there has to be a check at relevant places (e.g.,
> memory_failure_dev_pagemap()), checking somehow if the memmap content
> can actually be used.

Ok, let me audit and fix that up.

Thanks David.