linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix incorrect __vmap_pages_range_noflush() if vm_area_alloc_pages() from high order fallback to order0

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: <CAGsJ_4yvEGW6cm8h=AJ_f9iUSNvZhODnmt6Ze7Wfxot747b9tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:11:04 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: "Hailong.Liu" <hailong.liu@...o.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	"Tangquan . Zheng" <zhengtangquan@...o.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix incorrect __vmap_pages_range_noflush()
 if vm_area_alloc_pages() from high order fallback to order0

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 8:02 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 02:28:27AM +0800, Hailong.Liu wrote:
> > >     if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMALLOC) ||
> > > -                   page_shift == PAGE_SHIFT)
> > > -           return vmap_small_pages_range_noflush(addr, end, prot, pages);
> > > +                   page_shift == PAGE_SHIFT ||
> > > +                   page_private(pages[0]) == VM_AREA_ALLOC_PAGES_FALLBACK) {
> > > +           int ret = vmap_small_pages_range_noflush(addr, end, prot, pages);
> > > +
> > > +           set_page_private(pages[0], 0);
> > > +           return ret;
> > > +   }
> > >
> > >     for (i = 0; i < nr; i += 1U << (page_shift - PAGE_SHIFT)) {
> > >             int err;
> > > @@ -3583,6 +3590,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> > >
> > >                     /* fall back to the zero order allocations */
> > >                     alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOFAIL;
> > > +                   fallback = true;
> > Sry for my mistake, I forget define fallback here.
> > BTW, This is not the optimal solution. Does anyone have a better idea? Glad to
> > hear:)
>
> Yeah, I really don't like this approach.  You could return a small
> struct indicating both nr_allocated and whether you had to fall back.
> Or you could pass a bool * parameter.  They're both pretty nasty.

Yes, I feel returning a bool won't work very well.

the result could be a mixture of PMD and PTE if the allocated pages are
larger than a PMD.

For example, if we allocate 8MB, it might result in the first 4MB being
2* PMD, and the remaining 4MB being PTE order-0 pages.

I am also curious what will happen if we allocate 3MB(1PMD + some PTEs),
is the below doing the correct mapping?

        do {
                ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
                        page_shift);
                if (nofail && (ret < 0))
                        schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
        } while (nofail && (ret < 0));

Is it possible we have only mapped the first 2MB if page_shift is PMD?

Thanks
Barry