linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 075/106] s390/setup: avoid using memblock_enforce_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: <20211206145558.083597320@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon,  6 Dec 2021 15:56:23 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 075/106] s390/setup: avoid using memblock_enforce_memory_limit

From: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>

[ Upstream commit 5dbc4cb4667457b0c53bcd7bff11500b3c362975 ]

There is a difference in how architectures treat "mem=" option. For some
that is an amount of online memory, for s390 and x86 this is the limiting
max address. Some memblock api like memblock_enforce_memory_limit()
take limit argument and explicitly treat it as the size of online memory,
and use __find_max_addr to convert it to an actual max address. Current
s390 usage:

memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memblock_end_of_DRAM());

yields different results depending on presence of memory holes (offline
memory blocks in between online memory). If there are no memory holes
limit == max_addr in memblock_enforce_memory_limit() and it does trim
online memory and reserved memory regions. With memory holes present it
actually does nothing.

Since we already use memblock_remove() explicitly to trim online memory
regions to potential limit (think mem=, kdump, addressing limits, etc.)
drop the usage of memblock_enforce_memory_limit() altogether. Trimming
reserved regions should not be required, since we now use
memblock_set_current_limit() to limit allocations and any explicit memory
reservations above the limit is an actual problem we should not hide.

Reviewed-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
index ceaee215e2436..e9ef093eb6767 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
@@ -706,9 +706,6 @@ static void __init setup_memory(void)
 		storage_key_init_range(reg->base, reg->base + reg->size);
 	}
 	psw_set_key(PAGE_DEFAULT_KEY);
-
-	/* Only cosmetics */
-	memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memblock_end_of_DRAM());
 }

 /*
-- 
2.33.0