linux-kernel - Re: Arm64 crash while reading memory sysfs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YK6EcMPETjBkVahC@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 20:25:04 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     "Qian Cai (QUIC)" <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Arm64 crash while reading memory sysfs

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 02:04:26PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:09:14PM +0000, Qian Cai (QUIC) wrote:
> > [    0.000000] Early memory node ranges
> > [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000090000000-0x0000000091ffffff]
> 
> Maybe de-selecting HOLES_IN_ZONE is not correct for arm64 in all
> circumstances. In a configuration with 64K pages, MAX_ORDER is 14,
> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES is 8192, so a 2^29 address range. However, the above
> range starts on 2^28 boundary.
> 
> SECTION_SIZE_BITS is 29 in this configuration but the corresponding
> mem_map[] in the first half of the first section is probably not marked
> as reserved as we'd do for NOMAP.

We do initialize (or at least we should) the first of the first section in
page_alloc::init_unavailable_range() so the range [0x8000000 - 0x9000000]
will have struct pages marked as reserved.

I think it should be fine to de-select HOLES_IN_ZONE as long as MAX_ORDER
chunk does not exceed a section because we do have memory map there in such
case and HOLES_IN_ZONE along with pfn_valid_within() protected against
access to non-existing memory map entries.

We still have an issue with memory map initialization, and probably I've
missed something in decoupling of "do we have memory there" from
pfn_valid().

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.