linux-kernel - Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB

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: <20231106074448.GB17777@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 08:44:48 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>,
        Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@...rix.com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Memory corruption with CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC=y

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:59:49PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> I don't think it's possible to improve the allocation logic without
> modifying the page allocator and/or the DMA atomic pool allocator to
> take additional constraints into account.
> 
> I had a wild idea back in March, but it would require some intrusive
> changes in the mm subsystem. Among other things, it would make memory
> zones obsolete. I mean, people may actually like to get rid of DMA,
> DMA32 and NORMAL, but you see how many nasty bugs were introduced even
> by a relatively small change in SWIOTLB. Replacing memory zones with a
> system based on generic physical allocation constraints would probably
> blow up the universe. ;-)

It would be very nice, at least for DMA32 or the 30/31-bit DMA pools
used on some architectures.  For the x86-style 16MB zone DMA I suspect
just having a small pool on the side that's not even exposed to the
memory allocator would probably work better.

I think a lot of the MM folks would love to be able to kill of the
extra zones.