| 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: <ab9f1a6c-4099-2b59-457d-fcc45d2396f4@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:26:44 +0300
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kbuild-all@...ts.01.org>,
<clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bogus struct page layout on 32-bit
Hi Ilias, All,
On 10/04/2021 11:52, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> +CC Grygorii for the cpsw part as Ivan's email is not valid anymore
>
> Thanks for catching this. Interesting indeed...
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 09:22, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 03:43:13 +0100
>> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 06:45:35AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>>> include/linux/mm_types.h:274:1: error: static_assert failed due to requirement '__builtin_offsetof(struct page, lru) == __builtin_offsetof(struct folio, lru)' "offsetof(struct page, lru) == offsetof(struct folio, lru)"
>>>> FOLIO_MATCH(lru, lru);
>>>> include/linux/mm_types.h:272:2: note: expanded from macro 'FOLIO_MATCH'
>>>> static_assert(offsetof(struct page, pg) == offsetof(struct folio, fl))
>>>
>>> Well, this is interesting. pahole reports:
>>>
>>> struct page {
>>> long unsigned int flags; /* 0 4 */
>>> /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
>>> union {
>>> struct {
>>> struct list_head lru; /* 8 8 */
>>> ...
>>> struct folio {
>>> union {
>>> struct {
>>> long unsigned int flags; /* 0 4 */
>>> struct list_head lru; /* 4 8 */
>>>
>>> so this assert has absolutely done its job.
>>>
>>> But why has this assert triggered? Why is struct page layout not what
>>> we thought it was? Turns out it's the dma_addr added in 2019 by commit
>>> c25fff7171be ("mm: add dma_addr_t to struct page"). On this particular
>>> config, it's 64-bit, and ppc32 requires alignment to 64-bit. So
>>> the whole union gets moved out by 4 bytes.
>>
>> Argh, good that you are catching this!
>>
>>> Unfortunately, we can't just fix this by putting an 'unsigned long pad'
>>> in front of it. It still aligns the entire union to 8 bytes, and then
>>> it skips another 4 bytes after the pad.
>>>
>>> We can fix it like this ...
>>>
>>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>> @@ -96,11 +96,12 @@ struct page {
>>> unsigned long private;
>>> };
>>> struct { /* page_pool used by netstack */
>>> + unsigned long _page_pool_pad;
>>
>> I'm fine with this pad. Matteo is currently proposing[1] to add a 32-bit
>> value after @dma_addr, and he could use this area instead.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210409223801.104657-3-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com/
>>
>> When adding/changing this, we need to make sure that it doesn't overlap
>> member @index, because network stack use/check page_is_pfmemalloc().
>> As far as my calculations this is safe to add. I always try to keep an
>> eye out for this, but I wonder if we could have a build check like yours.
>>
>>
>>> /**
>>> * @dma_addr: might require a 64-bit value even on
>>> * 32-bit architectures.
>>> */
>>> - dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed;
>>> };
>>> struct { /* slab, slob and slub */
>>> union {
>>>
>>> but I don't know if GCC is smart enough to realise that dma_addr is now
>>> on an 8 byte boundary and it can use a normal instruction to access it,
>>> or whether it'll do something daft like use byte loads to access it.
>>>
>>> We could also do:
>>>
>>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed __aligned(sizeof(void *));
>>>
>>> and I see pahole, at least sees this correctly:
>>>
>>> struct {
>>> long unsigned int _page_pool_pad; /* 4 4 */
>>> dma_addr_t dma_addr __attribute__((__aligned__(4))); /* 8 8 */
>>> } __attribute__((__packed__)) __attribute__((__aligned__(4)));
>>>
>>> This presumably affects any 32-bit architecture with a 64-bit phys_addr_t
>>> / dma_addr_t. Advice, please?
>>
>> I'm not sure that the 32-bit behavior is with 64-bit (dma) addrs.
>>
>> I don't have any 32-bit boards with 64-bit DMA. Cc. Ivan, wasn't your
>> board (572x ?) 32-bit with driver 'cpsw' this case (where Ivan added
>> XDP+page_pool) ?
Sry, for delayed reply.
The TI platforms am3/4/5 (cpsw) and Keystone 2 (netcp) can do only 32bit DMA even in case of LPAE (dma-ranges are used).
Originally, as I remember, CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT has not been selected for the LPAE case
on TI platforms and the fact that it became set is the result of multi-paltform/allXXXconfig/DMA
optimizations and unification.
(just checked - not set in 4.14)
Probable commit 4965a68780c5 ("arch: define the ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT config symbol in lib/Kconfig").
The TI drivers have been updated, finally to accept ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT=y by using things like (__force u32)
for example.
Honestly, I've done sanity check of CPSW with LPAE=y (ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT=y) very long time ago.
--
Best regards,
grygorii
Powered by blists - more mailing lists