[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170803144746.GA9501@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:47:46 -0400
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tagging of vmalloc pages for supporting the pmalloc
allocator
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:55:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 03-08-17 15:20:31, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > On 03/08/17 14:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 03-08-17 13:11:45, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > >> On 02/08/17 20:08, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:14:28PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >>>> from include/linux/mm_types.h:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> struct page {
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> union {
> > >>>> unsigned long private; /* Mapping-private opaque data:
> > >>>> * usually used for buffer_heads
> > >>>> * if PagePrivate set; used for
> > >>>> * swp_entry_t if PageSwapCache;
> > >>>> * indicates order in the buddy
> > >>>> * system if PG_buddy is set.
> > >>>> */
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> If the "Mapping-private" was dropped or somehow connected exclusively to
> > >> the cases listed in the comment, then I think it would be more clear
> > >> that the comment needs to be intended as related to mapping in certain
> > >> cases only.
> > >> But it is otherwise ok to use the "private" field for whatever purpose
> > >> it might be suitable, as long as it is not already in use.
> > >
> > > I would recommend adding a new field into the enum...
> >
> > s/enum/union/ ?
> >
> > If not, I am not sure what is the enum that you are talking about.
>
> yeah, fat fingers on my side
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> But, to reply more specifically to your advice, yes, I think I could add
> > >> a flag to vm_struct and then retrieve its value, for the address being
> > >> processed, by passing through find_vm_area().
> > >
> > > ... and you can store vm_struct pointer to the struct page there
> >
> > "there" as in the new field of the union?
> > btw, what would be a meaningful name, since "private" is already taken?
> >
> > For simplicity, I'll use, for now, "private2"
>
> why not explicit vm_area?
>
> > > and you> won't need to do the slow find_vm_area. I haven't checked
> > very closely
> > > but this should be possible in principle. I guess other callers might
> > > benefit from this as well.
> >
> > I am confused about this: if "private2" is a pointer, but when I get an
> > address, I do not even know if the address represents a valid pmalloc
> > page, how can i know when it's ok to dereference "private2"?
>
> because you can make all pages which back vmalloc mappings have vm_area
> pointer set.
Note that i think this might break some device driver that use vmap()
i think some of them use private field to store device driver specific
informations. But there likely is an unuse field in struct page that
can be use for that.
Jérôme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
