On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:12:23AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.10.20 20:01, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-26 at 10:37 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> >> @@ -2184,14 +2184,14 @@ static int __set_pages_np(struct page *page,
> >> int numpages)
> >> return __change_page_attr_set_clr(&cpa, 0);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -int set_direct_map_invalid_noflush(struct page *page)
> >> +int set_direct_map_invalid_noflush(struct page *page, int numpages)
> >> {
> >> - return __set_pages_np(page, 1);
> >> + return __set_pages_np(page, numpages);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -int set_direct_map_default_noflush(struct page *page)
> >> +int set_direct_map_default_noflush(struct page *page, int numpages)
> >> {
> >> - return __set_pages_p(page, 1);
> >> + return __set_pages_p(page, numpages);
> >> }
> >
> > Somewhat related to your other series, this could result in large NP
> > pages and trip up hibernate.
> >
>
> It feels somewhat desirable to disable hibernation once secretmem is
> enabled, right? Otherwise you'll be writing out your secrets to swap,
> where they will remain even after booting up again ...
>
> Skipping secretmem pages when hibernating is the wrong approach I guess ...
Completely agree.
I'll look into preventing hibernation from touching secretmem.
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
