netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 0/4] introduce HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMALLOC_FLAG for bpf_prog

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3D4CC64A-1852-45B3-BA35-17EAD2504447@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:22:47 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/4] introduce HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMALLOC_FLAG for
 bpf_prog_pack



> On Apr 8, 2022, at 3:08 AM, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:57:25 +0000
> Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Nicholas and Claudio, 
>> 
>>> On Apr 5, 2022, at 4:54 PM, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:07 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:22:00PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:  
>>>>>>> Please fix the underlying issues instead of papering over them and
>>>>>>> creating a huge maintainance burden for others.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> After reading the code a little more, I wonder what would be best strategy. 
>>>>> IIUC, most of the kernel is not ready for huge page backed vmalloc memory.
>>>>> For example, all the module_alloc cannot work with huge pages at the moment.
>>>>> And the error Paul Menzel reported in drm_fb_helper.c will probably hit 
>>>>> powerpc with 5.17 kernel as-is? (trace attached below) 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right now, we have VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP to let a user to opt out of huge pages. 
>>>>> However, given there are so many users of vmalloc, vzalloc, etc., we 
>>>>> probably do need a flag for the user to opt-in? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does this make sense? Any recommendations are really appreciated.   
>>>> 
>>>> I think there is multiple aspects here:
>>>> 
>>>> - if we think that the kernel is not ready for hugepage backed vmalloc
>>>> in general we need to disable it in powerpc for now.  
>>> 
>>> Nicholas and Claudio, 
>>> 
>>> What do you think about the status of hugepage backed vmalloc on powerpc? 
>>> I found module_alloc and kvm_s390_pv_alloc_vm() opt-out of huge pages.
>>> But I am not aware of users that benefit from huge pages (except vfs hash,
>>> which was mentioned in 8abddd968a30). Does an opt-in flag (instead of 
>>> current opt-out flag, VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP) make sense to you?   
>> 
>> Could you please share your comments on this? Specifically, does it make 
>> sense to replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with an opt-in flag? If we think current
>> opt-out flag is better approach, what would be the best practice to find 
>> all the cases to opt-out?
> 
> An opt in flag would surely make sense, and it would be more backwards
> compatible with existing code. That way each user can decide whether to
> fix the code to allow for hugepages, if possible at all. For example,
> the case you mentioned for s390 (kvm_s390_pv_alloc_vm) would not be
> fixable, because of a hardware limitation (the whole area _must_ be
> mapped with 4k pages)
> 
> If the consensus were to keep the current opt-put, then I guess each
> user would have to check each usage of vmalloc and similar, and see if
> anything breaks. To be honest, I think an opt-out would only be
> possible after having the opt-in for a (long) while, when most users
> would have fixed their code.
> 
> In short, I fully support opt-in.

Thanks Claudio!

I will prepare patches to replace VM_NO_HUGE_VMAP with an opt-in flag, 
and use the new flag in BPF. Please let me know any comments/suggestions
ont this direction. 

Song