linux-kernel - Re: Fragmented physical memory on powerpc/32

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: <YyGfkDKgeW7/nNlr@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:32:00 +0100
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Ash Logan <ash@...quark.com>,
        "paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "j.ne@...teo.net" <j.ne@...teo.net>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Fragmented physical memory on powerpc/32

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:36:13PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 13/09/2022 à 08:11, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > Le 12/09/2022 à 23:16, Pali Rohár a écrit :
> > > > 
> > > > My guess would be that something went wrong in the linear map
> > > > setup, but it
> > > > won't hurt running with "memblock=debug" added to the kernel
> > > > command line
> > > > to see if there is anything suspicious there.
> > > 
> > > Here is boot log on serial console with memblock=debug command line:
> > > 
> > ...
> > > 
> > > Do you need something more for debug?
> > 
> > Can you send me the 'vmlinux' used to generate the above Oops so that I
> > can see exactly where we are in function mem_init().
> > 
> > And could you also try without CONFIG_HIGHMEM just in case.
> > 
> 
> I looked at the vmlinux you sent me, the problem is in the loop for highmem
> in mem_init(). It crashes in the call to free_highmem_page()
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> 	{
> 		unsigned long pfn, highmem_mapnr;
> 
> 		highmem_mapnr = lowmem_end_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> 		for (pfn = highmem_mapnr; pfn < max_mapnr; ++pfn) {
> 			phys_addr_t paddr = (phys_addr_t)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> 			struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> 			if (!memblock_is_reserved(paddr))
> 				free_highmem_page(page);
> 		}
> 	}
> #endif /* CONFIG_HIGHMEM */
> 
> 
> As far as I can see in the memblock debug lines, the holes don't seem to be
> marked as reserved by memblock. So it is above valid ? Other architectures
> seem to do differently.
> 
> Can you try by replacing !memblock_is_reserved(paddr) by
> memblock_is_memory(paddr) ?

The holes should not be marked as reserved, we just need to loop over the
memory ranges rather than over pfns. Then the holes will be taken into
account.

I believe arm and xtensa got this right:

(from arch/arm/mm/init.c)

static void __init free_highpages(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
	unsigned long max_low = max_low_pfn;
	phys_addr_t range_start, range_end;
	u64 i;

	/* set highmem page free */
	for_each_free_mem_range(i, NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE,
				&range_start, &range_end, NULL) {
		unsigned long start = PFN_UP(range_start);
		unsigned long end = PFN_DOWN(range_end);

		/* Ignore complete lowmem entries */
		if (end <= max_low)
			continue;

		/* Truncate partial highmem entries */
		if (start < max_low)
			start = max_low;

		for (; start < end; start++)
			free_highmem_page(pfn_to_page(start));
	}
#endif
}

 
> Thanks
> Christophe
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.