| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bCqf7Bw13ibUbUfEtsGikv3Vhye-UTmNo4JgLZ=uAqbmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:53:10 -0400
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@...ud.ionos.com>,
Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>,
teawater <teawaterz@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.11 225/254] arm64/mm: define arch_get_mappable_range()
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:51 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 03:49:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > (+ Pavel)
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 15:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 03:08:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 12:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 03:05:25PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 14:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 03aaf83fba6e5af08b5dd174c72edee9b7d9ed9b ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This overrides arch_get_mappable_range() on arm64 platform which will be
> > > > > > > used with recently added generic framework. It drops
> > > > > > > inside_linear_region() and subsequent check in arch_add_memory() which are
> > > > > > > no longer required. It also adds a VM_BUG_ON() check that would ensure
> > > > > > > that mhp_range_allowed() has already been called.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1612149902-7867-3-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > > > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > > > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> > > > > > > Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> > > > > > > Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@...ud.ionos.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: teawater <teawaterz@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 15 +++++++--------
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > > > > index 6f0648777d34..92b3be127796 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1443,16 +1443,19 @@ static void __remove_pgd_mapping(pgd_t *pgdir, unsigned long start, u64 size)
> > > > > > > free_empty_tables(start, end, PAGE_OFFSET, PAGE_END);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -static bool inside_linear_region(u64 start, u64 size)
> > > > > > > +struct range arch_get_mappable_range(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + struct range mhp_range;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * Linear mapping region is the range [PAGE_OFFSET..(PAGE_END - 1)]
> > > > > > > * accommodating both its ends but excluding PAGE_END. Max physical
> > > > > > > * range which can be mapped inside this linear mapping range, must
> > > > > > > * also be derived from its end points.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > - return start >= __pa(_PAGE_OFFSET(vabits_actual)) &&
> > > > > > > - (start + size - 1) <= __pa(PAGE_END - 1);
> > > > > > > + mhp_range.start = __pa(_PAGE_OFFSET(vabits_actual));
> > > > > > > + mhp_range.end = __pa(PAGE_END - 1);
> > > > > > > + return mhp_range;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> > > > > > > @@ -1460,11 +1463,7 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > int ret, flags = 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (!inside_linear_region(start, size)) {
> > > > > > > - pr_err("[%llx %llx] is outside linear mapping region\n", start, start + size);
> > > > > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > + VM_BUG_ON(!mhp_range_allowed(start, size, true));
> > > > > > > if (rodata_full || debug_pagealloc_enabled())
> > > > > > > flags = NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS | NO_CONT_MAPPINGS;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The stable rc 5.10 and 5.11 builds failed for arm64 architecture
> > > > > > due to below warnings / errors,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> > > > > > > arm64/mm: define arch_get_mappable_range()
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c: In function 'arch_add_memory':
> > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:1483:13: error: implicit declaration of function
> > > > > > 'mhp_range_allowed'; did you mean 'cpu_map_prog_allowed'?
> > > > > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > > > VM_BUG_ON(!mhp_range_allowed(start, size, true));
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/build_bug.h:30:63: note: in definition of macro
> > > > > > 'BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID'
> > > > > > #define BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(e) ((void)(sizeof((__force long)(e))))
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:1483:2: note: in expansion of macro 'VM_BUG_ON'
> > > > > > VM_BUG_ON(!mhp_range_allowed(start, size, true));
> > > > > > ^~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Build link,
> > > > > > https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-stable-rc-5.11/DISTRO=lkft,MACHINE=juno,label=docker-buster-lkft/41/consoleText
> > > > > > https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-stable-rc-5.10/DISTRO=lkft,MACHINE=dragonboard-410c,label=docker-buster-lkft/120/consoleFull
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks, will go drop this, and the patch that was after it in the
> > > > > series, from both trees and will push out a -rc2.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why were these picked up in the first place? I don't see any fixes or
> > > > cc:stable tags, and the commit log clearly describes that the change
> > > > is preparatory work for enabling arm64 support into a recently
> > > > introduced generic framework.
> > >
> > > This was needed for a follow-on patch in the series that fixed an issue.
> > > Specifically it was commit ee7febce0519 ("arm64: mm: correct the inside
> > > linear map range during hotplug check")
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, but during the discussion of that patch [0], we pointed out that
> > it needed to be rebased because of these new changes. So trying to
> > backport this rebased version is obviously not the right approach:
> > Pavel's original patch would be much more suitable for that.
> >
> > Could we have annotated this patch in a better way to make this more obvious?
>
> Yes, given that there was no annotation on the patch at all to let us
> know this :)
>
> You can say things like "do not apply to stable trees" or "needs total
> rework for older kernels" or other fun such things that when we read
> them, we know to ask for help. As it is, the patch provided nothing so
> we guessed and got it wrong...
I will send the patch for stable trees with the commit id included as requested.
Pasha
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists