linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/64s/hash: Fix 128TB-512TB virtual address boundary case allocation
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:08:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y3njsne9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171106100315.29720-2-npiggin@gmail.com>

Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:

> When allocating VA space with a hint that crosses 128TB, the SLB addr_limit
> variable is not expanded if addr is not > 128TB, but the slice allocation
> looks at task_size, which is 512TB. This results in slice_check_fit()
> incorrectly succeeding because the slice_count truncates off bit 128 of the
> requested mask, so the comparison to the available mask succeeds.


But then the mask passed to slice_check_fit() is generated using
context.addr_limit as max value. So how did that return succcess? ie,
we get the request mask via

slice_range_to_mask(addr, len, &mask);

And the potential/possible mask using

slice_mask_for_size(mm, psize, &good_mask);

So how did slice_check_fit() return sucess with

slice_check_fit(mm, mask, good_mask);


>
> Fix this by using mm->context.addr_limit instead of mm->task_size for
> testing allocation limits. This causes such allocations to fail.
>
> Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Fixes: f4ea6dcb08 ("powerpc/mm: Enable mappings above 128TB")
> Reported-by: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c
> index 45f6740dd407..567db541c0a1 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static int slice_area_is_free(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  {
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>
> -	if ((mm->task_size - len) < addr)
> +	if ((mm->context.addr_limit - len) < addr)

I was looking at these as generic boundary check against task size and
for specific range check we should have created mask always using
context.addr_limit. That should keep the boundary condition check same
across radix/hash.

>  		return 0;
>  	vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
>  	return (!vma || (addr + len) <= vm_start_gap(vma));
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static void slice_mask_for_free(struct mm_struct *mm, struct slice_mask *ret)
>  		if (!slice_low_has_vma(mm, i))
>  			ret->low_slices |= 1u << i;
>
> -	if (mm->task_size <= SLICE_LOW_TOP)
> +	if (mm->context.addr_limit <= SLICE_LOW_TOP)
>  		return;
>
>  	for (i = 0; i < GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(mm->context.addr_limit); i++)
> @@ -446,19 +446,20 @@ unsigned long slice_get_unmapped_area(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len,
>
>  	/* Sanity checks */
>  	BUG_ON(mm->task_size == 0);
> +	BUG_ON(mm->context.addr_limit == 0);
>  	VM_BUG_ON(radix_enabled());
>
>  	slice_dbg("slice_get_unmapped_area(mm=%p, psize=%d...\n", mm, psize);
>  	slice_dbg(" addr=%lx, len=%lx, flags=%lx, topdown=%d\n",
>  		  addr, len, flags, topdown);
>
> -	if (len > mm->task_size)
> +	if (len > mm->context.addr_limit)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	if (len & ((1ul << pshift) - 1))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	if (fixed && (addr & ((1ul << pshift) - 1)))
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -	if (fixed && addr > (mm->task_size - len))
> +	if (fixed && addr > (mm->context.addr_limit - len))
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>
>  	/* If hint, make sure it matches our alignment restrictions */
> @@ -466,7 +467,7 @@ unsigned long slice_get_unmapped_area(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len,
>  		addr = _ALIGN_UP(addr, 1ul << pshift);
>  		slice_dbg(" aligned addr=%lx\n", addr);
>  		/* Ignore hint if it's too large or overlaps a VMA */
> -		if (addr > mm->task_size - len ||
> +		if (addr > mm->context.addr_limit - len ||
>  		    !slice_area_is_free(mm, addr, len))
>  			addr = 0;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.15.0

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-06 10:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-06 10:03 [PATCH 0/5] VA allocator fixes Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:03 ` [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/64s/hash: Fix 128TB-512TB virtual address boundary case allocation Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:38   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2017-11-06 10:54     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 11:05       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06 11:21         ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07  2:00         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-07  2:03           ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:03 ` [PATCH 2/5] powerpc/64s/hash: Allow MAP_FIXED allocations to cross 128TB boundary Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:44   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06 11:55     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07  2:28       ` Michael Ellerman
2017-11-07  2:52         ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:03 ` [PATCH 3/5] powerpc/64s/hash: Fix fork() with 512TB process address space Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:44   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06 10:03 ` [PATCH 4/5] powerpc/64s/radix: Fix 128TB-512TB virtual address boundary case allocation Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 11:14   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06 11:42     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 10:03 ` [PATCH 5/5] powerpc/64s: mm_context.addr_limit is only used on hash Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06 15:16 ` [PATCH 0/5] VA allocator fixes Florian Weimer
2017-11-07  0:06   ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07  1:59     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

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=87y3njsne9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.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).