linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap

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: <a4b5707f-0f0b-57a8-ccdb-d89f66210b52@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:53:42 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        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-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap

On 1/12/22 11:43 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:10:40AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 1/11/22 03:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> Unaccepted memory bitmap is allocated during decompression stage and
>>> handed over to main kernel image via boot_params. The bitmap is used to
>>> track if memory has been accepted.
>>>
>>> Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap has to prevent reallocating memory for
>>> other means.
>>
>> I'm having a hard time parsing that changelog, especially the second
>> paragraph.  Could you give it another shot?
> 
> What about this:
> 
> 	Unaccepted memory bitmap is allocated during decompression stage and
> 	handed over to main kernel image via boot_params.
> 
> 	Kernel tracks what memory has been accepted in the bitmap.
> 
> 	Reserve memory where the bitmap is placed to prevent memblock from
> 	re-allocating the memory for other needs.
> 
> ?

Ahh, I get what you're trying to say now.  But, it still really lacks a
coherent problem statement.  How about this?

	== Problem ==

	A given page of memory can only be accepted once.  The kernel
	has a need to accept memory both in the early decompression
	stage and during normal runtime.

	== Solution ==

	Use a bitmap to communicate the acceptance state of each page
	between the decompression stage and normal runtime.  This
	eliminates the possibility of attempting to double-accept a
	page.

	== Details ==

	Allocate the bitmap during decompression stage and hand it over
	to the main kernel image via boot_params.

	In the runtime kernel, reserve the bitmap's memory to ensure
	nothing overwrites it.

>>> +	/* Mark unaccepted memory bitmap reserved */
>>> +	if (boot_params.unaccepted_memory) {
>>> +		unsigned long size;
>>> +
>>> +		/* One bit per 2MB */
>>> +		size = DIV_ROUND_UP(e820__end_of_ram_pfn() * PAGE_SIZE,
>>> +				    PMD_SIZE * BITS_PER_BYTE);
>>> +		memblock_reserve(boot_params.unaccepted_memory, size);
>>> +	}
>>
>> Is it OK that the size of the bitmap is inferred from
>> e820__end_of_ram_pfn()?  Is this OK in the presence of mem= and other things
>> that muck with the e820?
> 
> Good question. I think we are fine. If kernel is not able to allocate
> memory from a part of physical address space we don't need the bitmap for
> it either.

That's a good point.  If the e820 range does a one-way shrink it's
probably fine.  The only problem would be if the bitmap had space for
for stuff past e820__end_of_ram_pfn() *and* it later needed to be accepted.

Would it be worth recording the size of the reservation and then
double-checking against it in the bitmap operations?