[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:27:34 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] arm64/mm: Add support for
XPFO
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:22:08PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:36:03AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > From: Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
> >
> > Enable support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO) for arm64 and
> > provide a hook for updating a single kernel page table entry (which is
> > required by the generic XPFO code).
> >
> > v6: use flush_tlb_kernel_range() instead of __flush_tlb_one()
> >
> > CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > Signed-off-by: Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> > arch/arm64/mm/Makefile | 2 ++
> > arch/arm64/mm/xpfo.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > index dfd908630631..44fa44ef02ec 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ config ARM64
> > select SPARSE_IRQ
> > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE
> > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
> > + select ARCH_SUPPORTS_XPFO
>
> A bit of a nit, but this list is (intended to be) organised alphabetically.
> Could you please try to retain that?
>
> i.e. place this between ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING and
> ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION.
Will do.
> > help
> > ARM 64-bit (AArch64) Linux support.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> > index 9b0ba191e48e..22e5cab543d8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> > @@ -11,3 +11,5 @@ KASAN_SANITIZE_physaddr.o += n
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_KASAN) += kasan_init.o
> > KASAN_SANITIZE_kasan_init.o := n
> > +
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_XPFO) += xpfo.o
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/xpfo.c b/arch/arm64/mm/xpfo.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..678e2be848eb
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/xpfo.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2017 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development, L.P.
> > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Brown University. All rights reserved.
> > + *
> > + * Authors:
> > + * Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@....com>
> > + * Vasileios P. Kemerlis <vpk@...brown.edu>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by
> > + * the Free Software Foundation.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/mm.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Lookup the page table entry for a virtual address and return a pointer to
> > + * the entry. Based on x86 tree.
> > + */
>
> Is this intended for kernel VAs, user VAs, or both?
>
> There are different constraints for fiddling with either (e.g. holding
> mmap_sem), so we should be clear regarding the intended use-case.
kernel only; I can add a comment noting this.
> > +static pte_t *lookup_address(unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > + pgd_t *pgd;
> > + pud_t *pud;
> > + pmd_t *pmd;
> > +
> > + pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr);
> > + if (pgd_none(*pgd))
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
> > + if (pud_none(*pud))
> > + return NULL;
>
> What if it's not none, but not a table?
>
> I think we chould check pud_sect() here, and/or pud_bad().
>
> > +
> > + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> > + if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> > + return NULL;
>
> Likewise.
In principle pud_sect() should be okay, because we say that XPFO
doesn't support section mappings yet. I'll add a check for pud_bad().
However, Christoph suggested that we move this to common code and
there it won't be okay.
> > +
> > + return pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
> > +}
>
> Given this expects a pte, it might make more sense to call this
> lookup_address_pte() to make that clear.
>
> > +
> > +/* Update a single kernel page table entry */
> > +inline void set_kpte(void *kaddr, struct page *page, pgprot_t prot)
> > +{
> > + pte_t *pte = lookup_address((unsigned long)kaddr);
> > +
> > + set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), prot));
>
> We can get NULL from lookup_address(), so this doesn't look right.
>
> If NULL implies an error, drop a BUG_ON(!pte) before the set_pte.
It does, I'll add this (as a WARN() and then no-op), thanks.
> > +}
> > +
> > +inline void xpfo_flush_kernel_tlb(struct page *page, int order)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long kaddr = (unsigned long)page_address(page);
> > + unsigned long size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> unsigned long size = PAGE_SIZE << order;
>
> > +
> > + flush_tlb_kernel_range(kaddr, kaddr + (1 << order) * size);
>
> ... and this can be simpler.
>
> I haven't brought myself back up to speed, so it might not be possible, but I
> still think it would be preferable for XPFO to call flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> directly.
I don't think we can, since on x86 it uses smp functions, and in some
cases those aren't safe.
Cheers,
Tycho
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.
