linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc

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: <d01c20fe-86d2-1dc8-e56d-15c0da49afb3@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:09:50 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages

On 07.12.21 16:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-12-21 16:34:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 07.12.21 16:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 07-12-21 16:09:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 07.12.21 14:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 07-12-21 13:28:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> But maybe I am missing something important regarding online vs. offline
>>>>>> nodes that your patch changes?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am relying on alloc_node_data setting the node online. But if we are
>>>>> to change the call to arch_alloc_node_data then the patch needs to be
>>>>> more involved. Here is what I have right now. If this happens to be the
>>>>> right way then there is some additional work to sync up with the hotplug
>>>>> code.
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> index c5952749ad40..a296e934ad2f 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> @@ -8032,8 +8032,23 @@ void __init free_area_init(unsigned long *max_zone_pfn)
>>>>>  	/* Initialise every node */
>>>>>  	mminit_verify_pageflags_layout();
>>>>>  	setup_nr_node_ids();
>>>>> -	for_each_online_node(nid) {
>>>>> -		pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
>>>>> +	for_each_node(nid) {
>>>>> +		pg_data_t *pgdat;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (!node_online(nid)) {
>>>>> +			pr_warn("Node %d uninitialized by the platform. Please report with memory map.\n", nid);
>>>>> +			pgdat = arch_alloc_nodedata(nid);
>>>>> +			pgdat->per_cpu_nodestats = alloc_percpu(struct per_cpu_nodestat);
>>>>> +			arch_refresh_nodedata(nid, pgdat);
>>>>> +			node_set_online(nid);
>>>>
>>>> Setting all possible nodes online might result in quite some QE noice,
>>>> because all these nodes will then be visible in the sysfs and
>>>> try_offline_nodes() is essentially for the trash.
>>>
>>> I am not sure I follow. I believe sysfs will not get populate because I
>>> do not call register_one_node.
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/topology.c:topology_init()
>>
>> for_each_online_node(i)
>> 	register_one_node(i);
> 
> Right you are.
>  
>>> You are right that try_offline_nodes will be reduce which is good imho.
>>> More changes will be possible (hopefully to drop some ugly code) on top
>>> of this change (or any other that achieves that there are no NULL pgdat
>>> for possible nodes).
>>>
>>
>> No to exposing actually offline nodes to user space via sysfs.
> 
> Why is that a problem with the sysfs for non-populated nodes?
> 

https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200428093836.27190-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/

Contains some points -- certainly nothing unfixable but it clearly shows
that users expect only nodes with actual memory and cpus to be online --
that's why we export the possible+online state to user space. My point
is to be careful with such drastic changes and do one step at a time.

I think preallocation of the pgdat is a reasonable thing to have without
changing user-space visible semantics or even in-kernel semantics.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb