linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] arm64: realm: Support nonsecure ITS emulation shared

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: <Zk4l2xFBDW_3ImFD@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 18:05:31 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
	Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] arm64: realm: Support nonsecure ITS emulation
 shared

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 04:52:45PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 12:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:42:11AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> >> @@ -3432,7 +3468,16 @@ static struct its_device *its_create_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id,
> >>  	nr_ites = max(2, nvecs);
> >>  	sz = nr_ites * (FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_ITT_ENTRY_SIZE, its->typer) + 1);
> >>  	sz = max(sz, ITS_ITT_ALIGN) + ITS_ITT_ALIGN - 1;
> >> -	itt = kzalloc_node(sz, GFP_KERNEL, its->numa_node);
> >> +	itt_order = get_order(sz);
> >> +	page = its_alloc_shared_pages_node(its->numa_node,
> >> +					   GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
> >> +					   itt_order);
> > 
> > How much do we waste by going for a full page always if this is going to
> > be used on the host?
> 
> sz is a minimum of ITS_ITT_ALIGN*2-1 - which is 511 bytes. So
> potentially PAGE_SIZE-512 bytes could be wasted here (minus kmalloc
> overhead).

That I figured out as well but how many times is this path called with a
size smaller than a page?

-- 
Catalin