On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:22:53 +0200
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:00:29 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I can't come up with a satisfying reason why we still need the memory
> > segment list. We used to represent in the list:
> > - boot memory
> > - standby memory added via add_memory()
> > - loaded dcss segments
> >
> > When loading/unloading dcss segments, we already track them in a
> > separate list and check for overlaps
> > (arch/s390/mm/extmem.c:segment_overlaps_others()) when loading segments.
> >
> > The overlap check was introduced for some segments in
> > commit b2300b9efe1b ("[S390] dcssblk: add >2G DCSSs support and stacked
> > contiguous DCSSs support.")
> > and was extended to cover all dcss segments in
> > commit ca57114609d1 ("s390/extmem: remove code for 31 bit addressing
> > mode").
> >
> > Although I doubt that overlaps with boot memory and standby memory
> > are relevant, let's reshuffle the checks in load_segment() to request
> > the resource first. This will bail out in case we have overlaps with
> > other resources (esp. boot memory and standby memory). The order
> > is now different compared to segment_unload() and segment_unload(), but
> > that should not matter.
>
> You are right that this is ancient, but I think "overlaps with boot
> memory and standby memory" were very relevant, that might actually
> have been the initial reason for this in ancient times (but I do not
> really remember).
>
> With DCSS you can define a fixed start address where the segment will
> be loaded into guest address space. The current code queries this address
> and directly gives it to vmem_add_mapping(), at least if there is no
> overlap with other DCSS segments. If there would be an overlap with
> boot memory, and not checked / rejected in vmem_add_mapping(), the
> following dcss_diag() would probably fail because AFAIR z/VM will
> not allow loading a DCSS with guest memory overlap. So far, so good,
> but the vmem_remove_mapping() on the exit path would then remove
> (part of) boot memory.
>
> That being said, I think your patch prevents this by moving
> request_resource() up, so we should not call vmem_add_mapping()
> for such overlaps. I still want to give it some test, but need
> to find / setup systems with that ancient technology first :-)
>
Verified with DCSS overlapping boot and standby memory, works fine.
As expected, the error message changes, but I don't think that is a
problem, as long as you also remove the old -ENOSPC case / comment
in arch/s390/mm/extmem.c. It is actually more correct now I guess,
-ENOSPC doesn't look like the correct return value anyway.
Thanks for cleaning up! Looks good to me, and removes > 100 LOC,
unless Heiko remembers some other issues from ancient times.
Reviewed-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx> [DCSS]
