linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add support for unaccepted 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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:07:29 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "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>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 11:38:08PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/9/22 08:54, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> >>>  	if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
> >>>  		to_tail = true;
> >>>  	else if (is_shuffle_order(order))
> >>> @@ -1149,7 +1192,8 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> >>>  static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
> >>>  					unsigned long check_flags)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1))
> >>> +	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1) &&
> >>> +	    !PageUnaccepted(page))
> >>>  		return false;
> >>
> >> That probably deserves a comment, and maybe its own if() statement.
> > 
> > Own if does not work. PageUnaccepted() is encoded in _mapcount.
> > 
> > What about this:
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * page->_mapcount is expected to be -1.
> > 	 *
> > 	 * There is an exception for PageUnaccepted(). The page type can be set
> > 	 * for pages on free list. Page types are encoded in _mapcount.
> > 	 *
> > 	 * PageUnaccepted() will get cleared in post_alloc_hook().
> > 	 */
> > 	if (unlikely((atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) | PG_unaccepted) != -1))

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this true for any PageType?

> > 		return false;
> > 
> > ?
> 
> That's better.  But, aren't the PG_* names usually reserved for real
> page->flags bits?  That naming might be part of my confusion.

We use them for PageType as well like PG_buddy, PG_offline, PG_Table.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.