From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30469C43334 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E906E20857 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:12:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E906E20857 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727364AbeIEQmh (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:42:37 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:3703 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726497AbeIEQmg (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:42:36 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Sep 2018 05:12:38 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,333,1531810800"; d="scan'208";a="260908556" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Sep 2018 05:09:54 -0700 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 86F2FE1; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:09:53 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:09:53 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Baoquan He Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, thgarnie@google.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Adjust the vmemmap size according to paging mode Message-ID: <20180905120953.mc2rr6zr2cisqx3u@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20180829021754.21850-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180829021754.21850-2-bhe@redhat.com> <20180829120530.6dhgsautjjrj4ztt@kshutemo-mobl1> <20180830152512.GE14702@192.168.1.2> <20180902205242.kcpt6wsatacahswp@kshutemo-mobl1> <20180903074718.GD1740@192.168.1.3> <20180903102642.rmzawwqsqjvh2mkb@kshutemo-mobl1> <20180903145213.GG1740@192.168.1.3> <20180904081314.gdhm55qchhl5irmv@kshutemo-mobl1> <20180905081531.GN1740@192.168.1.3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180905081531.GN1740@192.168.1.3> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170714-126-deb55f (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:15:31AM +0000, Baoquan He wrote: > On 09/04/18 at 11:13am, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:52:13PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > On 09/03/18 at 01:26pm, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > > But there's corner case when struct page is unreasonably large and > > > > > > vmemmap_size will be way to large. We probably have to report an error if > > > > > > we cannot fit vmemmap properly into virtual memory layout. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, sizeof(struct page) can't exceed one whole page surely, otherwise > > > > > system bootup can't go over vmemmap initlization. Except of this, we may > > > > > need think about the virtual memory layout which vmemmap can be allowed > > > > > to occupy. > > > > > > > > > > If KASAN enabled, KASLR disabled, > > > > > 4-level 1TB + 1TB hole (2TB) > > > > > 5-level 512TB + 2034TB hole (2.5PB) > > > > > > > > > > If KASAN disabled, KASLR enabled, > > > > > 4-level 1TB + 1TB hole + 16TB (18TB) > > > > > 5-level 512TB + 2034TB hole + 8PB (10.5PB) > > > > > > > > > > So, as you can see, if add check in memory KASLR code, we should only > > > > > consider KASLR enabled case. We possibly don't need to worry about > > > > > 5-level case since the size 10.5PB is even bigger than the maximum > > > > > physical RAM mapping size. For 4-level, 18TB align to multiples of 2, it > > > > > will be 32 times of the current 1TB, then we usually assume 64 as the > > > > > default value of sizeof(struct page), then 64*32 == 1024. So we can add > ~~~64*32 = 2048 > Sorry, I made mistake here. > > > > > check like this, what do you think? Or any other idea? > > > > > > > > Looks reasonable to me. > > > > > > > > But I would have the BUILD_BUG_ON() in generic code. If you struct page is > > > > more than 1/4 of PAGE_SIZE something is horribly broken. > > > > > > Just the 1/4 of PAGE_SIZE is based on analysis of KASLR case. If > > > non-KASLR case, it may not be that value. > > > > Even if it technically possible to have struct page larger than > > PAGE_SIZE/4, it's just insane. > > > > > Not sure if it's OK to put it in generic code, and haven't thought of a > > > good place, maybe in setup_arch(), just at the beginning? > > > > I don't see an obvious place too. Maybe free_area_init_nodes()? > > OK, you mean a more generic place, I only considered generic place in > x86. The thing is not all ARCH-es set PAGE_SIZE as 4KB, e.g power and > arm64 can have PAGE_SIZE of 64KB. For them, PAGE_SIZE/4, namely 16KB, > is hardly reached. So my thought is either taking PAGE_SIZE/4 in x86 > arch only, or using SZ_1K in free_area_init_nodes() as you suggested. > What do you think? BUILD_BUG_ON() on min(SZ_1K, PAGE_SIZE/4)? -- Kirill A. Shutemov