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: <CAMj1kXE8AQaiyHQU9k18P7dK81xhuWRmh3BhpOSP_qPnsX+sRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:32:42 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: support bootparam max_addr

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 07:56, Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@....nxp.com> wrote:
>
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>
> There is a "mem=[x]" boot parameter, but when there is a whole reserved
> by secure TEE, the continuous DRAM area is split with two memblocks.
>
> For example, DRAM area [0x40000000, 0xffffffff], when TEE uses
> [0x50000000, 0x51000000), the memblock will be split into
> [0x40000000, 0x50000000) and [0x51000000, 0xffffffff].
>
> If pass "mem=1024MB", the actually max addr will be 0x81000000.
> However if need the max addr be 0x80000000, mem=1008MB should be used.
>
> There also might be multiple other holes that no visible to Linux, when
> we wanna to limit the max addr usable by Linux, using "max_addr=[X]" is
> much easier than "mem=[X]"
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>

mem= is a hack already, please don't add another one. Limiting the
memory like this is far too tricky, given that the kernel itself and
the initrd could end up in memory that is excluded, and we have to go
and fix things up if that happens.


> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index db63cc885771..3364b5e7a7fe 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ int pfn_is_map_memory(unsigned long pfn)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_is_map_memory);
>
>  static phys_addr_t memory_limit __ro_after_init = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> +static phys_addr_t max_addr __ro_after_init = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
>
>  /*
>   * Limit the memory size that was specified via FDT.
> @@ -189,6 +190,18 @@ static int __init early_mem(char *p)
>  }
>  early_param("mem", early_mem);
>
> +static int __init set_max_addr(char *p)
> +{
> +       if (!p)
> +               return 1;
> +
> +       max_addr = memparse(p, &p) & PAGE_MASK;
> +       pr_notice("Memory max addr set to 0x%llx\n", max_addr);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("max_addr", set_max_addr);
> +
>  void __init arm64_memblock_init(void)
>  {
>         s64 linear_region_size = PAGE_END - _PAGE_OFFSET(vabits_actual);
> @@ -253,6 +266,9 @@ void __init arm64_memblock_init(void)
>                 memblock_add(__pa_symbol(_text), (u64)(_end - _text));
>         }
>
> +       if (max_addr != PHYS_ADDR_MAX)
> +               memblock_cap_memory_range(0, max_addr);
> +
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD) && phys_initrd_size) {
>                 /*
>                  * Add back the memory we just removed if it results in the
> @@ -427,4 +443,9 @@ void dump_mem_limit(void)
>         } else {
>                 pr_emerg("Memory Limit: none\n");
>         }
> +
> +       if (max_addr != PHYS_ADDR_MAX)
> +               pr_emerg("Max addr: 0x%llx\n", max_addr);
> +       else
> +               pr_emerg("Max addr: none\n");
>  }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ