linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory

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: <67ce254c-aacc-43b6-d8d5-168ef9200f9e@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:16:26 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory

On 8/9/21 11:26 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> +void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> +{
> +	if (!boot_params.unaccepted_memory)
> +		return;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> +	__accept_memory(start, end);
> +	spin_unlock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> +}

Isn't this taken in the:

	del_page_from_free_list()->
	clear_page_offline()->
	accept_memory()

call path?

That's underneath:

	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);

Which means that accept_memory() can happen from interrupt context.  Is
it always covered by another spin_lock_irqsave() which means that it can
use a plain spin_lock()?

If so, it would be nice to call out that logic.  It *looks* like a
spinlock that we would want to be spin_lock_irqsave().