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: <ZES/7+zfs0h+lg7y@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:19:43 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
        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()

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 06:15:18PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> 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

Nit: in the current mm tree the default pageblock order is MAX_ORDER.

> 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
> + * 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

careful about ...

> + * pageblock.
>   */
>  struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
>  				     unsigned long end_pfn, struct zone *zone)
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.