linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 11/36] mm: limit folio/compound page sizes in problematic kernel configs

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: <32fbe774-d0e4-498e-873f-f028347c1fcb@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:01:53 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...s.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/36] mm: limit folio/compound page sizes in
 problematic kernel configs

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 01:57:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.08.25 17:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:01:15AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Let's limit the maximum folio size in problematic kernel config where
> > > the memmap is allocated per memory section (SPARSEMEM without
> > > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) to a single memory section.
> > >
> > > Currently, only a single architectures supports ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> > > but not SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP: sh.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, the biggest hugetlb size sh supports is 64 MiB
> > > (HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_64MB) and the section size is at least 64 MiB
> > > (SECTION_SIZE_BITS == 26), so their use case is not degraded.
> > >
> > > As folios and memory sections are naturally aligned to their order-2 size
> > > in memory, consequently a single folio can no longer span multiple memory
> > > sections on these problematic kernel configs.
> > >
> > > nth_page() is no longer required when operating within a single compound
> > > page / folio.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> > > Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> >
> > Realy great comments, like this!
> >
> > I wonder if we could have this be part of the first patch where you fiddle
> > with MAX_FOLIO_ORDER etc. but not a big deal.
>
> I think it belongs into this patch where we actually impose the
> restrictions.

Sure it's not a big deal.

>
> [...]
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Only pages within a single memory section are guaranteed to be
> > > + * contiguous. By limiting folios to a single memory section, all folio
> > > + * pages are guaranteed to be contiguous.
> > > + */
> > > +#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER		PFN_SECTION_SHIFT
> >
> > Hmmm, was this implicit before somehow? I mean surely by the fact as you say
> > that physical contiguity would not otherwise be guaranteed :))
>
> Well, my patches until this point made sure that any attempt to use a larger
> folio would fail in a way that we could spot now if there is any offender.

Ack yeah.

>
> That is why before this change, nth_page() was required within a folio.
>
> Hope that clarifies it, thanks!

Yes thanks! :)

>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Cheers, Lorenzo