Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp3042498ybn; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwuvePERvp2cB3t0Z1srMtrbU1uMv9hN7eT/o/m19UdDK9oA5pkk9aLeI59YeydY++oJhMM X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:65c2:: with SMTP id z2mr4440319ejn.31.1569566176792; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:36:16 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1569566176; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pQijLHI9XbXUx2uf4aCMqgp34LTsWxRMSQd18NPLX1a6I2vTZcZrRAXx8YVOUSytrb ITdGqNGd8Echj7URUbJR6Ty8tnlvf1fjgYO+cPtLuj/4Jq1szdNRnE6Fbif7OmHIbAjE cPFXDGGyDFycU7UgGjB8FJvMKVUaZi5Xo4Wj+vD9QSYy8CF3jdKE66hSFnuTUKVgKjJv VKWBxmU4osesaT06lu9Ha6caDEs1tx2P8W5UcXmbz8YYDMGBNpggMS71shRTZ63F1I4s bbuSbkHdtpUFAvi3BKf1HjQgnLBX4aCYX+yfjuR2IB+B7Fi1Z4ITnk95ZMlfWwLrAwQR ZD7g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:subject:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:organization :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from; bh=EHv0W5ncCkD+ty3NXiM4vfmgPCYg/Qt2FcUflwpjJuY=; b=FhlbVq4MmBrKH+g3KQ1DFmstKKHNKNxB9T/MQEdj032H3Ctr/1rqQAdRPBFw+gW4wq F73S5K3QOhLcChvqMpXejKiDeVjNhtNVRnfkyDDaM/VlkdMR2wcEPt0jEPVajkIfJnbW ykpM9yvrTbe8LNCJYqiE7ReDVjeq7P0Cs5v6y8ieP2C1KDjAum2XaGvf7DwWDbTICGO6 6I6qZxr2kQe7gehRYrygHXHqZULEqwkfm5QiZjJHBFGkSR1PFkty+v2ZSroLv9hSC50i 1sBwR1nnl1tvx2U17AYsbXJ4ynB3Z9ePf3YvjdaPs4SmUgvS9d48L4jOvXQi0ktxyko6 ytHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b9si957856edj.0.2019.09.26.23.35.52; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:36:16 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725861AbfI0GeH (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:34:07 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:22078 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725802AbfI0GeG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:34:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8R6WCpO150520 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:34:05 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2v8w26ngfu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:34:04 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:34:02 +0100 Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.194) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:33:58 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x8R6XvJm41615862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:33:57 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BBDAE057; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:33:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FC9AE055; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:33:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:33:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from adsilva.ozlabs.ibm.com (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 839C5A00F9; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:33:54 +1000 (AEST) From: "Alastair D'Silva" To: David Hildenbrand , Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Oscar Salvador , Pavel Tatashin , Dan Williams , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:33:54 +1000 In-Reply-To: <10237d54-f182-be5d-1b83-3d0780d71671@redhat.com> References: <20190926013406.16133-1-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <20190926013406.16133-2-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <8e00cf16-76b9-6655-86b6-288b454d6fe5@redhat.com> <20190926074312.GD20255@dhcp22.suse.cz> <10237d54-f182-be5d-1b83-3d0780d71671@redhat.com> Organization: IBM Australia Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 (3.32.4-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19092706-0008-0000-0000-0000031B8EA0 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19092706-0009-0000-0000-00004A3A2C77 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] memory_hotplug: Add a bounds check to __add_pages X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-27_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909270059 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 09:46 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 26.09.19 09:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-09-19 09:12:50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 26.09.19 03:34, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > > > From: Alastair D'Silva > > > > > > > > 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") > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lkml.kernel.org_r_20190827052047.31547-2D1-2Dalastair-40au1.ibm.com&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=cT4tgeEQ0Ll3SIlZDHE5AEXyKy6uKADMtf9_Eb7-vec&m=p9ZS4kSnvF0zq81jcCFd2nYj1zfTMvfbApCtmKI2KNA&s=yif-duzz_RESW3LUyU_0kkmefRAnKWjjn_p5Et-9B2g&e= > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva > > > > --- > > > > 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. > > > > What is your concern here? Unwinding the state should be pretty > > straightfoward from this failure path. > > Just the general "check what you can check early without locks" > approach. But yeah, this series is probably not worth a v5, so I can > live with this change just fine :) > > I'm going to spin a V5 anyway - where were you suggesting? > -- > > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb -- Alastair D'Silva Open Source Developer Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia mob: 0423 762 819