| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Zh6lD8d7cUZdkZJb@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:19:27 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
Cc: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Subject: Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 05:17:13PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On 2024-04-16 Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 01:02:20PM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> > > Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > [Adding Mike who's knowledgeable in this area]
> > >
> > > >> > Further, it seems like riscv32 indeed inserts a page like that to the
> > > >> > buddy allocator, when the memblock is free'd:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > | [<c024961c>] __free_one_page+0x2a4/0x3ea
> > > >> > | [<c024a448>] __free_pages_ok+0x158/0x3cc
> > > >> > | [<c024b1a4>] __free_pages_core+0xe8/0x12c
> > > >> > | [<c0c1435a>] memblock_free_pages+0x1a/0x22
> > > >> > | [<c0c17676>] memblock_free_all+0x1ee/0x278
> > > >> > | [<c0c050b0>] mem_init+0x10/0xa4
> > > >> > | [<c0c1447c>] mm_core_init+0x11a/0x2da
> > > >> > | [<c0c00bb6>] start_kernel+0x3c4/0x6de
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here, a page with VA 0xfffff000 is a added to the freelist. We were just
> > > >> > lucky (unlucky?) that page was used for the page cache.
> > > >>
> > > >> I just educated myself about memory mapping last night, so the below
> > > >> may be complete nonsense. Take it with a grain of salt.
> > > >>
> > > >> In riscv's setup_bootmem(), we have this line:
> > > >> max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this is the root cause: max_low_pfn indicates the last page
> > > >> to be mapped. Problem is: nothing prevents PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end) from
> > > >> getting mapped to the last page (0xfffff000). If max_low_pfn is mapped
> > > >> to the last page, we get the reported problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> There seems to be some code to make sure the last page is not used
> > > >> (the call to memblock_set_current_limit() right above this line). It is
> > > >> unclear to me why this still lets the problem slip through.
> > > >>
> > > >> The fix is simple: never let max_low_pfn gets mapped to the last page.
> > > >> The below patch fixes the problem for me. But I am not entirely sure if
> > > >> this is the correct fix, further investigation needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Nam
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > >> index fa34cf55037b..17cab0a52726 100644
> > > >> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > >> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > >> @@ -251,7 +251,8 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> min_low_pfn = PFN_UP(phys_ram_base);
> > > >> - max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);
> > > >> + max_low_pfn = PFN_DOWN(memblock_get_current_limit());
> > > >> + max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);
> > > >> high_memory = (void *)(__va(PFN_PHYS(max_low_pfn)));
> > > >>
> > > >> dma32_phys_limit = min(4UL * SZ_1G, (unsigned long)PFN_PHYS(max_low_pfn));
> > >
> > > Yeah, AFAIU memblock_set_current_limit() only limits the allocation from
> > > memblock. The "forbidden" page (PA 0xc03ff000 VA 0xfffff000) will still
> > > be allowed in the zone.
> > >
> > > I think your patch requires memblock_set_current_limit() is
> > > unconditionally called, which currently is not done.
> > >
> > > The hack I tried was (which seems to work):
> > >
> > > --
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > index fe8e159394d8..3a1f25d41794 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > > @@ -245,8 +245,10 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > > */
> > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> > > max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> > > - if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> > > + if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1)) {
> > > memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
> > > + phys_ram_end -= 4096;
> > > + }
> > > }
> >
> > You can just memblock_reserve() the last page of the first gigabyte, e.g.
>
> "last page of the first gigabyte" - why first gigabyte? Do you mean
> last page of *last* gigabyte?
With 3G-1G split linear map can map only 1G from 0xc0000000 to 0xffffffff
(or 0x00000000 with 32-bit overflow):
[ 0.000000] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0x00000000 (1024 MB)
> > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)
> > memblock_reserve(SZ_1G - PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
> >
> > The page will still be mapped, but it will never make it to the page
> > allocator.
> >
> > The nice thing about it is, that memblock lets you to reserve regions that are
> > not necessarily populated, so there's no need to check where the actual RAM
> > ends.
>
> I tried the suggested code, it didn't work. I think there are 2
> mistakes:
> - last gigabyte, not first
> - memblock_reserve() takes physical addresses as arguments, not
> virtual addresses
>
> The below patch fixes the problem. Is this what you really meant?
>
> Best regards,
> Nam
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> index fa34cf55037b..ac7efdd77be8 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> */
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> + memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), __pa(PAGE_SIZE));
__pa(-PAGE_SIZE) is what I meant, yes.
> max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists