Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] struct page: add field for vm_struct
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
CC:     <jglisse@redhat.com>, <keescook@chromium.org>, <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        <labbott@redhat.com>, <hch@infradead.org>, <willy@infradead.org>,
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
References: <20180130151446.24698-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <20180130151446.24698-4-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311758340.21272@nuc-kabylake>
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <48fde114-d063-cfbf-e1b6-262411fcd963@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:42:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311758340.21272@nuc-kabylake>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 01/02/18 02:00, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> 
>> @@ -1769,6 +1774,9 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>>
>>  	kmemleak_vmalloc(area, size, gfp_mask);
>>
>> +	for (page_counter = 0; page_counter < area->nr_pages; page_counter++)
>> +		area->pages[page_counter]->area = area;
>> +
>>  	return addr;
> 
> Well this introduces significant overhead for large sized allocation. Does
> this not matter because the areas are small?

Relatively significant?
I do not object to your comment, but in practice i see that:

- vmalloc is used relatively little
- allocations do not seem to be huge
- there seem to be way larger overheads in the handling of virtual pages
  (see my proposal for the LFS/m summit, about collapsing struct
   vm_struct and struct vmap_area)


> Would it not be better to use compound page allocations here?
> page_head(whatever) gets you the head page where you can store all sorts
> of information about the chunk of memory.

Can you please point me to this function/macro? I don't seem to be able
to find it, at least not in 4.15

During hardened user copy permission check, I need to confirm if the
memory range that would be exposed to userspace is a legitimate
sub-range of a pmalloc allocation.


So, I start with the pair (address, size) and I must end up to something
I can compare it against.
The idea here is to pass through struct_page and then the related
vm_struct/vmap_area, which already has the information about the
specific chunk of virtual memory.

I cannot comment on your proposal because I do not know where to find
the reference you made, or maybe I do not understand what you mean :-(

--
igor