linux-kernel - Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?

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: <20240416200910.294ea07b@namcao>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:09:10 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...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 2024-04-16 Björn Töpel wrote:
> Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de> writes:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > index fa34cf55037b..f600cfee0aef 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > @@ -197,7 +197,6 @@ early_param("mem", early_mem);
> >  static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> >  {
> >  	phys_addr_t vmlinux_end = __pa_symbol(&_end);
> > -	phys_addr_t max_mapped_addr;
> >  	phys_addr_t phys_ram_end, vmlinux_start;
> >  
> >  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL))
> > @@ -238,17 +237,9 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> >  	/*
> >  	 * memblock allocator is not aware of the fact that last 4K bytes of
> >  	 * the addressable memory can not be mapped because of IS_ERR_VALUE
> > -	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock
> > -	 * if end of dram is equal to maximum addressable memory.  For 64-bit
> > -	 * kernel, this problem can't happen here as the end of the virtual
> > -	 * address space is occupied by the kernel mapping then this check must
> > -	 * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> > +	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> > -		max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> > -		if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> > -			memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
> > -	}
> > +	memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), PAGE_SIZE);
> >  
> >  	min_low_pfn = PFN_UP(phys_ram_base);
> >  	max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);  
> 
> Nice! Would you mind submitting this as a proper fix (unless there's a
> way to do it non-arch specific like Matthew pointed out).

I don't mind, but I am waiting for the discussion on the non-arch solution.

Best regards,
Nam