| 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: <CALEZRWE4PD2zADF1sVj++XkUan14SfDdugjse695gPqSorLgag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:20:32 +0100
From: Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...asip.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, David McKay <david.mckay@...asip.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Fix linear mapping checks for non-contiguous
memory regions
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 8:29 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On 22/06/2024 13:42, Stuart Menefy wrote:
> > The RISC-V kernel already has checks to ensure that memory which would
> > lie outside of the linear mapping is not used. However those checks
> > use memory_limit, which is used to implement the mem= kernel command
> > line option (to limit the total amount of memory, not its address
> > range). When memory is made up of two or more non-contiguous memory
> > banks this check is incorrect.
> >
> > Two changes are made here:
> > - add a call in setup_bootmem() to memblock_cap_memory_range() which
> > will cause any memory which falls outside the linear mapping to be
> > removed from the memory regions.
> > - remove the check in create_linear_mapping_page_table() which was
> > intended to remove memory which is outside the liner mapping based
> > on memory_limit, as it is no longer needed. Note a check for
> > mapping more memory than memory_limit (to implement mem=) is
> > unnecessary because of the existing call to
> > memblock_enforce_memory_limit().
> >
> > This issue was seen when booting on a SV39 platform with two memory
> > banks:
> > 0x00,80000000 1GiB
> > 0x20,00000000 32GiB
> > This memory range is 158GiB from top to bottom, but the linear mapping
> > is limited to 128GiB, so the lower block of RAM will be mapped at
> > PAGE_OFFSET, and the upper block straddles the top of the linear
> > mapping.
> >
> > This causes the following Oops:
> > [ 0.000000] Linux version 6.10.0-rc2-gd3b8dd5b51dd-dirty (stuart.menefy@...asip.com) (riscv64-codasip-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.41.0.20231213) #20 SMP Sat Jun 22 11:34:22 BST 2024
> > [ 0.000000] memblock_add: [0x0000000080000000-0x00000000bfffffff] early_init_dt_add_memory_arch+0x4a/0x52
> > [ 0.000000] memblock_add: [0x0000002000000000-0x00000027ffffffff] early_init_dt_add_memory_arch+0x4a/0x52
> > ...
> > [ 0.000000] memblock_alloc_try_nid: 23724 bytes align=0x8 nid=-1 from=0x0000000000000000 max_addr=0x0000000000000000 early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch+0x1e/0x48
> > [ 0.000000] memblock_reserve: [0x00000027ffff5350-0x00000027ffffaffb] memblock_alloc_range_nid+0xb8/0x132
> > [ 0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fffffffe7fff5350
> > [ 0.000000] Oops [#1]
> > [ 0.000000] Modules linked in:
> > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 6.10.0-rc2-gd3b8dd5b51dd-dirty #20
> > [ 0.000000] Hardware name: codasip,a70x (DT)
> > [ 0.000000] epc : __memset+0x8c/0x104
> > [ 0.000000] ra : memblock_alloc_try_nid+0x74/0x84
> > [ 0.000000] epc : ffffffff805e88c8 ra : ffffffff806148f6 sp : ffffffff80e03d50
> > [ 0.000000] gp : ffffffff80ec4158 tp : ffffffff80e0bec0 t0 : fffffffe7fff52f8
> > [ 0.000000] t1 : 00000027ffffb000 t2 : 5f6b636f6c626d65 s0 : ffffffff80e03d90
> > [ 0.000000] s1 : 0000000000005cac a0 : fffffffe7fff5350 a1 : 0000000000000000
> > [ 0.000000] a2 : 0000000000005cac a3 : fffffffe7fffaff8 a4 : 000000000000002c
> > [ 0.000000] a5 : ffffffff805e88c8 a6 : 0000000000005cac a7 : 0000000000000030
> > [ 0.000000] s2 : fffffffe7fff5350 s3 : ffffffffffffffff s4 : 0000000000000000
> > [ 0.000000] s5 : ffffffff8062347e s6 : 0000000000000000 s7 : 0000000000000001
> > [ 0.000000] s8 : 0000000000002000 s9 : 00000000800226d0 s10: 0000000000000000
> > [ 0.000000] s11: 0000000000000000 t3 : ffffffff8080a928 t4 : ffffffff8080a928
> > [ 0.000000] t5 : ffffffff8080a928 t6 : ffffffff8080a940
> > [ 0.000000] status: 0000000200000100 badaddr: fffffffe7fff5350 cause: 000000000000000f
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff805e88c8>] __memset+0x8c/0x104
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8062349c>] early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch+0x1e/0x48
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8043e892>] __unflatten_device_tree+0x52/0x114
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8062441e>] unflatten_device_tree+0x9e/0xb8
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff806046fe>] setup_arch+0xd4/0x5bc
> > [ 0.000000] [<ffffffff806007aa>] start_kernel+0x76/0x81a
> > [ 0.000000] Code: b823 02b2 bc23 02b2 b023 04b2 b423 04b2 b823 04b2 (bc23) 04b2
> > [ 0.000000] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > [ 0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!
> > [ 0.000000] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task! ]---
> >
> > The problem is that memblock (unaware that some physical memory cannot
> > be used) has allocated memory from the top of memory but which is
> > outside the linear mapping region.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...asip.com>
> > Fixes: c99127c45248 ("riscv: Make sure the linear mapping does not use the kernel mapping")
> > Reviewed-by: David McKay <david.mckay@...asip.com>
> >
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 15 +++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > index e3405e4b99af..7e25606f858a 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > @@ -233,8 +233,6 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > */
> > memblock_reserve(vmlinux_start, vmlinux_end - vmlinux_start);
> >
> > - phys_ram_end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> > -
> > /*
> > * Make sure we align the start of the memory on a PMD boundary so that
> > * at worst, we map the linear mapping with PMD mappings.
> > @@ -249,6 +247,16 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU))
> > kernel_map.va_pa_offset = PAGE_OFFSET - phys_ram_base;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The size of the linear page mapping may restrict the amount of
> > + * usable RAM.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> > + max_mapped_addr = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET) + KERN_VIRT_SIZE;
>
>
> This is only true for sv39 once the following patch lands
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20240514133614.87813-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com/
Hi Alex
I've seen this problem whether your patch has been applied or not.
> Otherwise, sv39 is "weirdly" restricted to 124GB. You mention in the
> changelog that the linear mapping size is limited to 128GB, does that
> mean you tested your patch on top this one ^? If so, would you mind
> adding a Tested-by to it? Otherwise, would you mind testing on top of it
> :) ?
I've tested in both cases, so I'll add a Tested-by.
Note that to actually use 128GiB on Sv39 systems yet another patch is
needed which I'll also post.
> I'll see with Palmer, but maybe we can't take both patches to -fixes.
All three patches address different issues, so I think it would be safe to
take them in any combination. However I understand the reluctance
when making changes in this area.
Thanks
Stuart
>
> You can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>
> > + memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_ram_base,
> > + max_mapped_addr - phys_ram_base);
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * Reserve physical address space that would be mapped to virtual
> > * addresses greater than (void *)(-PAGE_SIZE) because:
> > @@ -265,6 +273,7 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> > memblock_reserve(max_mapped_addr, (phys_addr_t)-max_mapped_addr);
> > }
> >
> > + phys_ram_end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> > min_low_pfn = PFN_UP(phys_ram_base);
> > max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);
> > high_memory = (void *)(__va(PFN_PHYS(max_low_pfn)));
> > @@ -1289,8 +1298,6 @@ static void __init create_linear_mapping_page_table(void)
> > if (start <= __pa(PAGE_OFFSET) &&
> > __pa(PAGE_OFFSET) < end)
> > start = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> > - if (end >= __pa(PAGE_OFFSET) + memory_limit)
> > - end = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET) + memory_limit;
> >
> > create_linear_mapping_range(start, end, 0);
> > }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists