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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 E3B28C5B57D for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:13:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41BA2146F for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:13:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1562047995; bh=WNJFRVtXGiIsJmQmGSXzJipNnwfRDuFAi3IeLCeLlX8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=jcmzz0m8a5zKxToICwmv/koUzfdOjPL6Zz/Vi5rB9efnT1bASGrQ/Vw4DPjOU8+Qm TiUm2UtOptKMgWOshba330JSEemZSBoUH5ItVuc5BGo8mPpR1V2jdyo3//NWCHeaPo ESW/L+C+zVa/YZ1+UxE3mXbOgKt0m356/lz1/3Q0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726102AbfGBGNO (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:13:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37360 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725775AbfGBGNO (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:13:14 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A75CB008; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:13:10 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Alastair D'Silva Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Pavel Tatashin , Oscar Salvador , Mike Rapoport , Baoquan He , Wei Yang , Logan Gunthorpe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Trigger bug on if a section is not found in __section_nr Message-ID: <20190702061310.GA978@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190626061124.16013-1-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <20190626061124.16013-2-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <20190626062113.GF17798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190626065751.GK17798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190627080724.GK17798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <833b9675bc363342827cb8f7c76ebb911f7f960d.camel@d-silva.org> <20190701104658.GA6549@dhcp22.suse.cz> <7f0ac9250e6fe6318aaf0685be56b121a978ce1b.camel@d-silva.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7f0ac9250e6fe6318aaf0685be56b121a978ce1b.camel@d-silva.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 02-07-19 14:13:25, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 12:46 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 28-06-19 10:46:28, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > [...] > > > Given that there is already a VM_BUG_ON in the code, how do you > > > feel > > > about broadening the scope from 'VM_BUG_ON(!root)' to > > > 'VM_BUG_ON(!root > > > > > (root_nr == NR_SECTION_ROOTS))'? > > > > As far as I understand the existing VM_BUG_ON will hit when the > > mem_section tree gets corrupted. This is a different situation to an > > incorrect section given so I wouldn't really mix those two. And I > > still > > do not see much point to protect from unexpected input parameter as > > this > > is internal function as already pointed out. > > > > Hi Michael, > > I was able to hit this problem as the system firmware had assigned the > prototype pmem device an address range above the 128TB limit that we > originally supported. This has since been lifted to 2PB with patch > 4ffe713b7587b14695c9bec26a000fc88ef54895. > > As it stands, we cannot move this range lower as the high bits are > dictated by the location the card is connected. > > Since the physical address of the memory is not controlled by the > kernel, I believe we should catch (or at least make it easy to debug) > the sitution where external firmware allocates physical addresses > beyond that which the kernel supports. Just make it clear, I am not against a sanitization. I am objecting to put it into __section_nr because this is way too late. As already explained, you already must have a bogus mem_section object in hand. Why cannot you add a sanity check right there when the memory is added? Either when the section is registered or even sooner in arch_add_memory. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs