From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@au1.ibm.com>, alastair@d-silva.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] memory_hotplug: Add a bounds check to __add_pages
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:37:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c448db33-75cc-e74d-8b41-9e6cc5071703@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8e00cf16-76b9-6655-86b6-288b454d6fe5@redhat.com>
On 26.09.19 09:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.09.19 03:34, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>> From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@d-silva.org>
>>
>> On PowerPC, the address ranges allocated to OpenCAPI LPC memory
>> are allocated from firmware. These address ranges may be higher
>> than what older kernels permit, as we increased the maximum
>> permissable address in commit 4ffe713b7587
>> ("powerpc/mm: Increase the max addressable memory to 2PB"). It is
>> possible that the addressable range may change again in the
>> future.
>>
>> In this scenario, we end up with a bogus section returned from
>> __section_nr (see the discussion on the thread "mm: Trigger bug on
>> if a section is not found in __section_nr").
>>
>> Adding a check here means that we fail early and have an
>> opportunity to handle the error gracefully, rather than rumbling
>> on and potentially accessing an incorrect section.
>>
>> Further discussion is also on the thread ("powerpc: Perform a bounds
>> check in arch_add_memory")
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190827052047.31547-1-alastair@au1.ibm.com
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@d-silva.org>
>> ---
>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> index c73f09913165..212804c0f7f5 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> @@ -278,6 +278,22 @@ static int check_pfn_span(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int check_hotplug_memory_addressable(unsigned long pfn,
>> + unsigned long nr_pages)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long max_addr = ((pfn + nr_pages) << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
>> +
>> + if (max_addr >> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS) {
>> + WARN(1,
>> + "Hotplugged memory exceeds maximum addressable address, range=%#lx-%#lx, maximum=%#lx\n",
>> + pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, max_addr,
>> + (1ul << (MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS + 1)) - 1);
>> + return -E2BIG;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Reasonably generic function for adding memory. It is
>> * expected that archs that support memory hotplug will
>> @@ -291,6 +307,10 @@ int __ref __add_pages(int nid, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> unsigned long nr, start_sec, end_sec;
>> struct vmem_altmap *altmap = restrictions->altmap;
>>
>> + err = check_hotplug_memory_addressable(pfn, nr_pages);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> if (altmap) {
>> /*
>> * Validate altmap is within bounds of the total request
>>
>
>
> I know Michal suggested this, but I still prefer checking early instead
> of when we're knees-deep into adding of memory. But as I don't have any
> power here, the code looks fine, although I consider the computations in
> check_hotplug_memory_addressable() fairly ugly.
>
Forgot to add
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
:)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-26 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-26 1:34 [PATCH v4 0/1] Add bounds check for Hotplugged memory Alastair D'Silva
2019-09-26 1:34 ` [PATCH v4] memory_hotplug: Add a bounds check to __add_pages Alastair D'Silva
2019-09-26 7:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-26 7:37 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2019-09-26 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-26 7:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-27 6:33 ` Alastair D'Silva
2019-09-27 7:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-26 7:40 ` Oscar Salvador
2019-09-26 7:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-26 7:47 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-26 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-26 7:53 ` Oscar Salvador
2019-09-27 5:14 ` Alastair D'Silva
2019-09-26 15:35 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c448db33-75cc-e74d-8b41-9e6cc5071703@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alastair@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=alastair@d-silva.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox