linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] vmalloc: Choose a better start address in vm_area_register

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: <20210801152311.GB28489@arm.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Aug 2021 08:23:12 -0700
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] vmalloc: Choose a better start address in
 vm_area_register_early()

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:51:03AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> There are some fixed locations in the vmalloc area be reserved
> in ARM(see iotable_init()) and ARM64(see map_kernel()), but for
> pcpu_page_first_chunk(), it calls vm_area_register_early() and
> choose VMALLOC_START as the start address of vmap area which
> could be conflicted with above address, then could trigger a
> BUG_ON in vm_area_add_early().
> 
> Let's choose the end of existing address range in vmlist as the
> start address instead of VMALLOC_START to avoid the BUG_ON.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index d5cd52805149..a98cf97f032f 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2238,12 +2238,14 @@ void __init vm_area_add_early(struct vm_struct *vm)
>   */
>  void __init vm_area_register_early(struct vm_struct *vm, size_t align)
>  {
> -	static size_t vm_init_off __initdata;
> +	unsigned long vm_start = VMALLOC_START;
> +	struct vm_struct *tmp;
>  	unsigned long addr;
>  
> -	addr = ALIGN(VMALLOC_START + vm_init_off, align);
> -	vm_init_off = PFN_ALIGN(addr + vm->size) - VMALLOC_START;
> +	for (tmp = vmlist; tmp; tmp = tmp->next)
> +		vm_start = (unsigned long)tmp->addr + tmp->size;
>  
> +	addr = ALIGN(vm_start, align);
>  	vm->addr = (void *)addr;
>  
>  	vm_area_add_early(vm);

Is there a risk of breaking other architectures? It doesn't look like to
me but I thought I'd ask.

Also, instead of always picking the end, could we search for a range
that fits?

-- 
Catalin