linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges

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: <dd9dfa98-21df-70c8-d43d-e9a83889464c@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:35:09 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges

>> IMHO, we should rip out that code here and enforce page alignment in
>> vmemmap_populate()/vmemmap_free().
>>
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks David for bringing this up, I must say I was not aware that this
> topic was ever discussed.

Yeah, last time I raised it was in

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200703013435.GA11340@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local

but I never got to clean it up myself.

> 
> Ok, I've been having a look into this.
> At first I was concerced because of a pure SPARSEMEM configuration, but I
> see that those allocations are done in a very diferent way so it does not
> bother us.
> 
> So we have the following enforcements during hotplug:
> 
> add_memory_resource
>   check_hotplug_memory_range : Checks range aligned to memory_block_size_bytes,
>                              : which means it must be section-size aligned
> 
> populate_section_memmap
>   __populate_section_memmap  : Checks range aligned to sub-section size
> 
> So, IIRC we have two cases during hotplug:
>   1) the ones that want memory blocks
>   2) the ones that do not want them (pmem stuff)
> 
> For #1, we always enforce section alignment in add_memory_resource, and for
> #2 we always make sure the range is at least sub-section aligned.
> 
> And the important stuff is that boot memory is no longer to be hot-removed
> (boot memory had some strange layout sometimes).

The vmemmap of boot mem sections is always fully populated, even with 
strange memory layouts (e.g., see comment in pfn_valid()). In addition, 
we can only offline+remove whole sections, so that should be fine.

> 
> So, given the above, I think it should be safe to drop that check in
> remote_pte_table.
> But do we really need to force page alignment in vmemmap_populate/vmemmap_free?
> vmemmap_populate should already receive a page-aligned chunk because
>   __populate_section_memmap made sure of that, and vmemmap_free() should be ok
> as we already filtered out at hot-adding stage.
> 
> Of course, this will hold as long as struct page size of multiple of 8.
> Should that change we might get trouble, but I do not think that can ever
> happened (tm).
> 
> But anyway, I am fine with placing a couple of checks in vmemmap_{populate,free}
> just to double check.
> 
> What do you think?

I'd just throw in 1 or 2 VM_BUG_ON() to self-document what we expect and 
that we thought about these conditions. It's then easy to identify the 
relevant commit where we explain the rationale.

I don't have a strong opinion, the other archs also don't seem to care 
about documenting/enforcing it.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb