[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:30:20 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sharma Bhupesh <bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com>, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@...escale.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] arm64: allow kernel Image to be loaded anywhere
in physical memory
On 8 January 2016 at 16:27, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> +static void __init enforce_memory_limit(void)
>> +{
>> + const phys_addr_t kbase = round_down(__pa(_text), MIN_KIMG_ALIGN);
>> + u64 to_remove = memblock_phys_mem_size() - memory_limit;
>> + phys_addr_t max_addr = 0;
>> + struct memblock_region *r;
>> +
>> + if (memory_limit == (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The kernel may be high up in physical memory, so try to apply the
>> + * limit below the kernel first, and only let the generic handling
>> + * take over if it turns out we haven't clipped enough memory yet.
>> + */
>> + for_each_memblock(memory, r) {
>> + if (r->base + r->size > kbase) {
>> + u64 rem = min(to_remove, kbase - r->base);
>> +
>> + max_addr = r->base + rem;
>> + to_remove -= rem;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (to_remove <= r->size) {
>> + max_addr = r->base + to_remove;
>> + to_remove = 0;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + to_remove -= r->size;
>> + }
>> +
>> + memblock_remove(0, max_addr);
>> +
>> + if (to_remove)
>> + memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memory_limit);
>> +}
>
> IIUC, this is changing the user expectations a bit. There are people
> using the mem= limit to hijack some top of the RAM for other needs
> (though they could do it in a saner way like changing the DT memory
> nodes). Your patch first tries to remove the memory below the kernel
> image and only remove the top if additional limitation is necessary.
>
> Can you not remove memory from the top and block the limit if it goes
> below the end of the kernel image, with some warning that memory limit
> was not entirely fulfilled?
>
I'm in the middle of rewriting this code from scratch. The general idea is
static void __init clip_mem_range(u64 min, u64 max);
/*
* Clip memory in order of preference:
* - above the kernel and above 4 GB
* - between 4 GB and the start of the kernel
* - below 4 GB
* Note that tho
*/
clip_mem_range(max(sz_4g, PAGE_ALIGN(__pa(_end))), ULLONG_MAX);
clip_mem_range(sz_4g, round_down(__pa(_text), MIN_KIMG_ALIGN));
clip_mem_range(0, sz_4g);
where clip_mem_range() iterates over the memblocks to remove memory
between min and max iff min < max and the limit has not been met yet.
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.
