| 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: <4632e721-0ac8-4d72-a8ed-e6c928eee94d@csgroup.eu>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:08:05 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
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,
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>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, 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,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: (bisected) [PATCH v2 08/37] mm/hugetlb: check for unreasonable
folio sizes when registering hstate
Le 09/10/2025 à 12:27, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
> On 09.10.25 12:01, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 09/10/2025 à 11:20, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>>> On 09.10.25 11:16, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 09/10/2025 à 10:14, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>>>>> On 09.10.25 10:04, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 09/10/2025 à 09:22, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 09.10.25 09:14, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 01/09/2025 à 17:03, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>>>>> index 1e777cc51ad04..d3542e92a712e 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -4657,6 +4657,7 @@ static int __init hugetlb_init(void)
>>>>>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct page, private) *
>>>>>>>>> BITS_PER_BYTE <
>>>>>>>>> __NR_HPAGEFLAGS);
>>>>>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER > MAX_FOLIO_ORDER);
>>>>>>>>> if (!hugepages_supported()) {
>>>>>>>>> if (hugetlb_max_hstate ||
>>>>>>>>> default_hstate_max_huge_pages)
>>>>>>>>> @@ -4740,6 +4741,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned int
>>>>>>>>> order)
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> BUG_ON(hugetlb_max_hstate >= HUGE_MAX_HSTATE);
>>>>>>>>> BUG_ON(order < order_base_2(__NR_USED_SUBPAGE));
>>>>>>>>> + WARN_ON(order > MAX_FOLIO_ORDER);
>>>>>>>>> h = &hstates[hugetlb_max_hstate++];
>>>>>>>>> __mutex_init(&h->resize_lock, "resize mutex", &h-
>>>>>>>>>> resize_key);
>>>>>>>>> h->order = order;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We end up registering hugetlb folios that are bigger than
>>>>>>> MAX_FOLIO_ORDER. So we have to figure out how a config can trigger
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> (and if we have to support that).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MAX_FOLIO_ORDER is defined as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>>>>>> #define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER PUD_ORDER
>>>>>> #else
>>>>>> #define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER MAX_PAGE_ORDER
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MAX_PAGE_ORDER is the limit for dynamic creation of hugepages via
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/ but bigger pages can be created at boottime
>>>>>> with kernel boot parameters without CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hugepagesz=64m hugepages=1 hugepagesz=256m hugepages=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HugeTLB: registered 1.00 GiB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages
>>>>>> HugeTLB: 0 KiB vmemmap can be freed for a 1.00 GiB page
>>>>>> HugeTLB: registered 64.0 MiB page size, pre-allocated 1 pages
>>>>>> HugeTLB: 0 KiB vmemmap can be freed for a 64.0 MiB page
>>>>>> HugeTLB: registered 256 MiB page size, pre-allocated 1 pages
>>>>>> HugeTLB: 0 KiB vmemmap can be freed for a 256 MiB page
>>>>>> HugeTLB: registered 4.00 MiB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages
>>>>>> HugeTLB: 0 KiB vmemmap can be freed for a 4.00 MiB page
>>>>>> HugeTLB: registered 16.0 MiB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages
>>>>>> HugeTLB: 0 KiB vmemmap can be freed for a 16.0 MiB page
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a violation of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE. The
>>>>> existing
>>>>> folio_dump() code would not handle it correctly as well.
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to dig into history and when looking at commit 4eb0716e868e
>>>> ("hugetlb: allow to free gigantic pages regardless of the
>>>> configuration") I understand that CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE is
>>>> needed to be able to allocate gigantic pages at runtime. It is not
>>>> needed to reserve gigantic pages at boottime.
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing ?
>>>
>>> That CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE has nothing runtime-specific in its
>>> name.
>>
>> In its name for sure, but the commit I mention says:
>>
>> On systems without CONTIG_ALLOC activated but that support gigantic
>> pages,
>> boottime reserved gigantic pages can not be freed at all. This
>> patch
>> simply enables the possibility to hand back those pages to memory
>> allocator.
>
> Right, I think it was a historical artifact.
>
>>
>> And one of the hunks is:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> index 7f7fbd8bd9d5b..7a1aa53d188d3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ config ARM64
>> select ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER
>> select ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE
>> select ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL
>> - select ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE if CONTIG_ALLOC
>> + select ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>> select ARCH_HAS_KCOV
>> select ARCH_HAS_KEEPINITRD
>> select ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE
>>
>> So I understand from the commit message that it was possible at that
>> time to have gigantic pages without ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE as long as
>> you didn't have to be able to free them during runtime.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Can't we just select CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE for the relevant
>>> hugetlb config that allows for *gigantic pages*.
>>>
>>
>> We probably can, but I'd really like to understand history and how we
>> ended up in the situation we are now.
>> Because blind fixes often lead to more problems.
>
> Yes, let's figure out how to to it cleanly.
>
>>
>> If I follow things correctly I see a helper gigantic_page_supported()
>> added by commit 944d9fec8d7a ("hugetlb: add support for gigantic page
>> allocation at runtime").
>>
>> And then commit 461a7184320a ("mm/hugetlb: introduce
>> ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE") is added to wrap gigantic_page_supported()
>>
>> Then commit 4eb0716e868e ("hugetlb: allow to free gigantic pages
>> regardless of the configuration") changed gigantic_page_supported() to
>> gigantic_page_runtime_supported()
>>
>> So where are we now ?
>
> In
>
> commit fae7d834c43ccdb9fcecaf4d0f33145d884b3e5c
> Author: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
> Date: Tue Feb 27 19:23:31 2024 +0000
>
> mm: add __dump_folio()
>
>
> We started assuming that a folio in the system (boottime, dynamic,
> whatever)
> has a maximum of MAX_FOLIO_NR_PAGES.
>
> Any other interpretation doesn't make any sense for MAX_FOLIO_NR_PAGES.
>
>
> So we have two questions:
>
> 1) How to teach MAX_FOLIO_NR_PAGES that hugetlb supports gigantic pages
>
> 2) How do we handle CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>
>
> We have the following options
>
> (A) Rename existing CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE to something else that is
> clearer and add a new CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE.
>
> (B) Rename existing CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE -> to something else
> that is
> clearer and derive somehow else that hugetlb in that config supports
> gigantic pages.
>
> (c) Just use CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE if hugetlb on an architecture
> supports gigantic pages.
>
>
> I don't quite see why an architecture should be able to opt in into
> dynamically
> allocating+freeing gigantic pages. That's just CONTIG_ALLOC magic and
> not some
> arch-specific thing IIRC.
>
>
> Note that in mm/hugetlb.c it is
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> #ifdef CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC
>
> Meaning that at least the allocation side is guarded by CONTIG_ALLOC.
Yes but not the freeing since commit 4eb0716e868e ("hugetlb: allow to
free gigantic pages regardless of the configuration")
>
> So I think (C) is just the right thing to do.
>
> diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
> index 0bfdaecaa8775..12c11eb9279d3 100644
> --- a/fs/Kconfig
> +++ b/fs/Kconfig
> @@ -283,6 +283,8 @@ config HUGETLB_PMD_PAGE_TABLE_SHARING
> def_bool HUGETLB_PAGE
> depends on ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE && SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS
>
> +# An architecture must select this option if there is any mechanism
> (esp. hugetlb)
> +# could obtain gigantic folios.
> config ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> bool
>
>
I gave it a try. That's not enough, it fixes the problem for 64 Mbytes
pages and 256 Mbytes pages, but not for 1 Gbytes pages.
Max folio is defined by PUD_ORDER, but PUD_SIZE is 256 Mbytes so we need
to make MAX_FOLIO larger. Do we change it to P4D_ORDER or is it too much
? P4D_SIZE is 128 Gbytes
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists