linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] 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: <YEcw/wXCQPHnUdOS@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:25:35 +0100
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        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 v4 3/3] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 07:43:30PM +0100, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:02:36AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Also, logically, it would make a lot of sense if you can move the actual
> > PMD freeing logic in here.  That way, the caller is just saying, "unuse
> > this PMD region", and then this takes care of the rest.  As it stands,
> > it's a bit weird that the caller takes care of the freeing.
> 
> You mean to move the 
> 
>  free_hugepage_table(pmd_page(*pmd), altmap);
>  spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
>  pmd_clear(pmd);
>  spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> 
> block in there?
> 
> Well, from where I see it, it is more like:
> 
>  if (is_the_range_unused())
>   : if so, free everything
> 
> But I agree with you what it might make some sense to move it there.
> Since I do not feel strong about this, I will move it.

hi Dave,

So, after splitting this patch and re-shape it to address all the
feedback, I am still not sure about this one.
Honestly, I think the freeing logic would be better off kept in
remove_pmd_table.

The reason for me is that vmemmap_unuse_sub_pmd only 1) marks the range
to be removed as unused and 2) checks whether after that, the whole
PMD range is unused.

I think the confusion comes from the name.
"vmemmap_pmd_is_unused" might be a better fit?

What do you think? Do you feel strong about moving the log in there
regardless of the name?


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3