linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 09/16] kexec: enable KHO support for memory preservation

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: <Z_aeEn7hKqGOG3Cf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:19:30 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@...zon.de>,
	Changyuan Lyu <changyuanl@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	graf@...zon.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org,
	anthony.yznaga@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de, ashish.kalra@....com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, mingo@...hat.com, jgowans@...zon.com,
	corbet@....net, krzk@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
	pbonzini@...hat.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, hpa@...or.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
	saravanak@...gle.com, skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, thomas.lendacky@....com,
	usama.arif@...edance.com, will@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/16] kexec: enable KHO support for memory
 preservation

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:37:14PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 04:58:16PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we still don't really know what will be needed, so I'd stick
> > > with folio only as that allows building the memfd and a potential slab
> > > preservation system.
> > 
> > void * seems to me much more reasonable than folio one as the starting
> > point because it allows preserving folios with the right order but it's not
> > limited to it. 
> 
> It would just call kho_preserve_folio() under the covers though.

How that will work for memblock and 1G pages?
 
> > I don't mind having kho_preserve_folio() from day 1 and even stretching the
> > use case we have right now to use it to preserve FDT memory.
> > 
> > But kho_preserve_folio() does not make sense for reserve_mem and it won't
> > make sense for vmalloc.
> 
> It does for vmalloc too, just stop thinking about it as a
> folio-for-pagecache and instead as an arbitary order handle to buddy
> allocator memory that will someday be changed to a memdesc :|

But we have memdesc today, it's struct page. It will be shrinked and maybe
renamed, it will contain a pointer rather than data, but that's what basic
memdesc is.
And when the data structure that memdesc points to will be allocated
separately folios won't make sense for order-0 allocations.
 
> > The weird games slab does with casting back and forth to folio also seem to
> > me like transitional and there won't be that folios in slab later.
> 
> Yes transitional, but we are at the transitional point and KHO should
> fit in.
> 
> The lowest allocator primitive returns folios, which can represent any
> order, and the caller casts to their own memdesc.

The lowest allocation primitive returns pages. 

struct folio *__folio_alloc_noprof(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
		nodemask_t *nodemask)
{
	struct page *page = __alloc_pages_noprof(gfp | __GFP_COMP, order,
					preferred_nid, nodemask);
	return page_rmappable_folio(page);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__folio_alloc_noprof);

And page_rmappable_folio() clues about folio-for-pagecache very clearly.

And I don't think folio will be a lowest primitive buddy returns anytime
soon if ever.
 
> Jason
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.