linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/vmemmap: Drop handling of 1GB vmemmap 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]

Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:15:58 +0100
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
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 2/3] x86/vmemmap: Drop handling of 1GB vmemmap ranges

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 03:12:05PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.02.21 15:10, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 02:33:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > One problem I see with existing code / this change making more obvious is
> > > that when trying to remove in other granularity than we added (e.g., unplug
> > > a 128MB DIMM avaialble during boot), we remove the direct map of unrelated
> > > DIMMs.
> > 
> > So, let me see if I understand your concern.
> > 
> > We have a range that was mapped with 1GB page, and we try to remove
> > a 128MB chunk from it.
> > Yes, in that case we would clear the pud, and that is bad, so we should
> > keep the PAGE_ALIGNED checks.
> > 
> > Now, let us assume that scenario.
> > If you have a 1GB mapped range and you remove it in smaller chunks bit by bit
> > (e.g: 128M), the direct mapping of that range will never be cleared unless
> 
> No, that's exactly what's happening. Good thing is that it barely ever
> happens, so I assume leaving behind some direct mapping / page tables is not
> that bad.

Sorry, I meant that that is the current situation now.

Then let us keep the PAGE_ALIGNED stuff.

I shall resend a v3 later today.


thanks for the review ;-)

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3