linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87sfcne8s2.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:23:25 +0800
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <rppt@...nel.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 v4] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the
 possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page()

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, the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() 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, 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.
>
> See below memory layout as an example and suppose the pageblock order
> is MAX_ORDER.
>
> [    0.000000] Zone ranges:
> [    0.000000]   DMA      [mem 0x0000000040000000-0x00000000ffffffff]
> [    0.000000]   DMA32    empty
> [    0.000000]   Normal   [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x0000001fa7ffffff]
> [    0.000000] Movable zone start for each node
> [    0.000000] Early memory node ranges
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000040000000-0x0000001fa3c7ffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa3c80000-0x0000001fa3ffffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa4000000-0x0000001fa402ffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa4030000-0x0000001fa40effff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa40f0000-0x0000001fa73cffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa73d0000-0x0000001fa745ffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7460000-0x0000001fa746ffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7470000-0x0000001fa758ffff]
> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7590000-0x0000001fa7dfffff]
>
> Focus on the last memory range, and there is a hole for the range [mem
> 0x0000001fa7590000-0x0000001fa7dfffff]. That means the last pageblock
> will contain the range from 0x1fa7c00000 to 0x1fa7ffffff, since the
> pageblock must be 4M aligned. And in this pageblock, these pfns will
> fall into 2 sub-section (the sub-section size is 2M aligned).
>
> So, the 1st sub-section (indicates pfn range: 0x1fa7c00000 -
> 0x1fa7dfffff ) in this pageblock is valid by calling subsection_map_init()
> in free_area_init(), but the 2nd sub-section (indicates pfn range:
> 0x1fa7e00000 - 0x1fa7ffffff ) in this pageblock is not 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>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>

> ---
> Changes from v3:
>  - Update the comments to make it clear.
>  - Add acked tag from Michal.
> Changes from v2:
>  - Update the commit log and comments per Michal, thanks.
> Changes from v1:
>  - Update the comments per Ying and Mike, thanks.
> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 6457b64fe562..af9c995d3c1e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1502,6 +1502,15 @@ 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: the function may return non-NULL struct page even for a page block
> + * which contains a memory hole (i.e. there is no physical memory for a subset
> + * of the pfn range). For example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER, 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 should be safe most of
> + * the time because struct pages are still initialized via init_unavailable_range()
> + * and pfn walkers shouldn't touch any physical memory range for which they do
> + * not recognize any specific metadata in struct pages.
>   */
>  struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
>  				     unsigned long end_pfn, struct zone *zone)