linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: bootmem: Check pfn_valid() before accessing struct page
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:45:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5384DD67.3010408@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401199802-10212-1-git-send-email-matt.fleming@intel.com>

On 05/27/2014 07:10 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> We need to check that a pfn is valid before handing it to pfn_to_page()
> since on low memory systems with CONFIG_HIGHMEM=n it's possible that a
> pfn may not have a corresponding struct page.
> 
> This is in fact the case for one of Alan's machines where some of the
> EFI boot services pages live in highmem, and running a kernel without
> CONFIG_HIGHMEM enabled results in the following oops
...
> diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c
> index 90bd3507b413..406e9cb1d58c 100644
> --- a/mm/bootmem.c
> +++ b/mm/bootmem.c
> @@ -164,6 +164,9 @@ void __init free_bootmem_late(unsigned long physaddr, unsigned long size)
>  	end = PFN_DOWN(physaddr + size);
>  
>  	for (; cursor < end; cursor++) {
> +		if (!pfn_valid(cursor))
> +			continue;
> +
>  		__free_pages_bootmem(pfn_to_page(cursor), 0);
>  		totalram_pages++;
>  	}

I don't think this is quite right.  pfn_valid() tells us whether we have
a 'struct page' there or not.  *BUT*, it does not tell us whether it is
RAM that we can actually address and than can be freed in to the buddy
allocator.

I think sparsemem is where this matters.  Let's say mem= caused lowmem
to end in the middle of a section (or that 896MB wasn't
section-aligned).  Then someone calls free_bootmem_late() on an area
that is in the last section, but _above_ max_mapnr.  It'll be
pfn_valid(), we'll free it in to the buddy allocator, and we'll blam the
first time we try to write to a bogus vaddr after a phys_to_virt().

At a higher level, I don't like the idea of the bootmem code papering
over bugs when somebody calls in to it trying to _free_ stuff that's not
memory (as far as the kernel is concerned).

I think the right thing to do is to call in to the e820 code and see if
the range is E820_RAM before trying to bootmem-free it.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-27 18:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-27 14:10 [PATCH] mm: bootmem: Check pfn_valid() before accessing struct page Matt Fleming
2014-05-27 18:45 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2014-06-03 15:17   ` Fleming, Matt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5384DD67.3010408@intel.com \
    --to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).