linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arm64 fix for 5.14

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: <CAHk-=wjd28sN9khO=1j6zmBk+2n4_e+SY1URjW9hzsHSAZU+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 10:03:29 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arm64 fix for 5.14

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:40 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> > In a PC world that would be (for example) the legacy PCI space at
> > 0xa0000-0xfffff, but I could easily imagine other platforms having
> > other situations.
>
> So what would be the correct check for "this is not actually page backed
> normal RAM"?

It would probably be interesting to have the arm people explain the
call chain for the warning that caused that revert, so we'd have a
very concrete example of the situation that goes wrong, but taking a
wild stab at it, the code might be something like

            /* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */
            if (WARN_ON_ONCE(phys_addr_is_ram(phys_addr)))
                    return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

and then having something like

  static inline bool phys_addr_is_ram(phys_addr_t phys_addr)
  {
        unsigned long pfn = PHYS_PFN(phys_addr);

        if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
                return false;
        return is_zero_pfn(pfn) || !PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn));
  }

might be close to right.

The ARM code actually uses that complex pfn_to_section_nr() and
memblock_is_memory() etc. That seems a bit of an overkill, since the
memblock code should have translated all that into being reserved.

But again, I don't actually know exactly what triggered the issue on
ARM, so the above is just my "this seems to be a more proper check"
suggestion.

Will?

                   Linus