linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to

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: <1e4ca204-6813-a809-4361-4197103814b0@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:27:28 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com, david@...hat.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the
 possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page()



On 4/23/2023 9:13 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
> 
>> Now the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used by set_zone_contiguous(), which
>> checks whether the given zone contains holes, and uses pfn_to_online_page()
>> to validate if the start pfn is online and valid, as well as using pfn_valid()
>> to validate the end pfn.
>>
>> However, though the start pfn of a pageblock is valid, it can not always
>> guarantee the end pfn of the pageblock is also valid (may be holes) in some
>> cases. For example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER - 1, which will fall
>> into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though
>> the start pfn is online and valid.
>>
>> This did not break anything until now, but the zone continuous is fragile
>> in this possible scenario. So as previous discussion[1], it is better to
>> add some comments to explain this possible issue in case there are some
>> future pfn walkers that rely on this.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0sdsmr6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/page_alloc.c | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 6457b64fe562..dc4005b32ae0 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -1502,6 +1502,14 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>>    * interleaving within a single pageblock. It is therefore sufficient to check
>>    * the first and last page of a pageblock and avoid checking each individual
>>    * page in a pageblock.
>> + *
>> + * Note: if the start pfn of a pageblock is valid, but it can not always guarantee
>> + * the end pfn of the pageblock is also valid (may be holes) in some cases. For
> 
> "valid" sounds confusing here.  pfn_valid() is true, but the pfn is
> considered invalid at some degree.  How about the following?
> 
> Note: the function may return non-NULL even if the end pfn of a
> pageblock is in a memory hole in some situations.  For
> 
>> + * example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER - 1, which will fall into 2
>> + * sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though the
>> + * start pfn is online and valid. This did not break anything until now, but be
>> + * careful this possible issue when checking if the whole pfns are valid of a
>                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> whether all pfns of a pageblock are valid. ?
> 
>> + * pageblock.
>>    */
>>   struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
>>   				     unsigned long end_pfn, struct zone *zone)
> 
> My English is poor.  So, feel free to ignore the comments.

Better than me:) . Will do in next version. Thanks.