linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix kernel page tables incorrectly deleted during memory removal

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:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:06:16 +0800
From:   mawupeng <mawupeng1@...wei.com>
To:     <david@...hat.com>, <anshuman.khandual@....com>, <will@...nel.org>
CC:     <mawupeng1@...wei.com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <sudaraja@...eaurora.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix kernel page tables incorrectly deleted
 during memory removal



On 2023/7/26 15:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.07.23 08:20, mawupeng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/7/24 14:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 07:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/24/23 06:55, mawupeng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023/7/21 18:36, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 07:51:50PM +0800, Wupeng Ma wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During our test, we found that kernel page table may be unexpectedly
>>>>>>> cleared with rodata off. The root cause is that the kernel page is
>>>>>>> initialized with pud size(1G block mapping) while offline is memory
>>>>>>> block size(MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE 128M), eg, if 2G memory is hot-added,
>>>>>>> when offline a memory block, the call trace is shown below,
>>>
>>> Is someone adding memory in 2 GiB granularity and then removing parts of it in 128 MiB granularity? That would be against what we support using the add_memory() / offline_and_remove_memory() API and that driver should be fixed instead.
>>
>> Yes, this kind of situation.
>>
>> The problem occurs in the following scenarios:
>> 1. use mem=xxG to reserve memory.
>> 2. add_momory to online memory.
>> 3. offline part of the memroy via offline_and_remove_memory.
>>
>> During my research, ACPI memory removal use memory_subsys_offline to offline memory section and
>> this will not delete page table entry which do not trigger this kind of problem.
>>
>> So I understand what you are talking about.
>> 1. 3rd-party driver shouldn't use add_memory/offline_and_remove_memory to online/offline memory.
>>     If it have to use, this can be achieved by driver.
>> 2. memory_subsys_offline is perfered to do such thing.
> 
> No, my point is that
> 
> 1) If you use add_memory() and offline_and_remove_memory() in the *same
>    granularity* it has to be working, otherwise it has to be fixed.
> 
> 2) If you use add_memory() and offline_and_remove_memory() in different
>    granularity (especially, add_memory() in bigger granularity) , then
>    change your code to do add_memory() in the same granularity.
> 
> 
> If you run into 1), then we populated a PUD for boot memory that also covers yet unpopulated physical memory ranges that are later populated by add_memory(). If that's the case, then we can either fix it by
> 
> a) Not doing that. Use PMD tables instead for that piece of memory.
> 
> b) Detecting that that PUD still covers memory and refusing to remove
>    that PUD.
> 
> c) Rejecting to hotadd memory in this situation at that location. We
>    have mhp_get_pluggable_range() -> arch_get_mappable_range() to kind-
>    of handle something like that.

Thank you for your patient answer.

This I do understand and answer my question.

>