Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:04:26 +0100 From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation Hi Igor, On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:34:57AM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote: > Documentation for protected memory. > > Topics covered: > * static memory allocation > * dynamic memory allocation > * write-rare > > Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> > CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> > CC: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> > CC: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > CC: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org > CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org > --- > Documentation/core-api/index.rst | 1 + > Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks for having docs a part of the patchset! > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 3 files changed, 174 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/index.rst b/Documentation/core-api/index.rst > index 26b735cefb93..1a90fa878d8d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/core-api/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/index.rst > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ Core utilities > gfp_mask-from-fs-io > timekeeping > boot-time-mm > + prmem > > Interfaces for kernel debugging > =============================== > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst b/Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..16d7edfe327a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +.. _prmem: > + > +Memory Protection > +================= > + > +:Date: October 2018 > +:Author: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> > + > +Foreword > +-------- > +- In a typical system using some sort of RAM as execution environment, > + **all** memory is initially writable. > + > +- It must be initialized with the appropriate content, be it code or data. > + > +- Said content typically undergoes modifications, i.e. relocations or > + relocation-induced changes. > + > +- The present document doesn't address such transient. > + > +- Kernel code is protected at system level and, unlike data, it doesn't > + require special attention. > + I feel that foreword should include a sentence or two saying why we need the memory protection and when it can/should be used. > +Protection mechanism > +-------------------- > + > +- When available, the MMU can write protect memory pages that would be > + otherwise writable. > + > +- The protection has page-level granularity. > + > +- An attempt to overwrite a protected page will trigger an exception. > +- **Write protected data must go exclusively to write protected pages** > +- **Writable data must go exclusively to writable pages** > + > +Available protections for kernel data > +------------------------------------- > + > +- **constant** > + Labelled as **const**, the data is never supposed to be altered. > + It is statically allocated - if it has any memory footprint at all. > + The compiler can even optimize it away, where possible, by replacing > + references to a **const** with its actual value. > + > +- **read only after init** > + By tagging an otherwise ordinary statically allocated variable with > + **__ro_after_init**, it is placed in a special segment that will > + become write protected, at the end of the kernel init phase. > + The compiler has no notion of this restriction and it will treat any > + write operation on such variable as legal. However, assignments that > + are attempted after the write protection is in place, will cause > + exceptions. > + > +- **write rare after init** > + This can be seen as variant of read only after init, which uses the > + tag **__wr_after_init**. It is also limited to statically allocated > + memory. It is still possible to alter this type of variables, after no comma ^ > + the kernel init phase is complete, however it can be done exclusively > + with special functions, instead of the assignment operator. Using the > + assignment operator after conclusion of the init phase will still > + trigger an exception. It is not possible to transition a certain > + variable from __wr_ater_init to a permanent read-only status, at __wr_aFter_init > + runtime. > + > +- **dynamically allocated write-rare / read-only** > + After defining a pool, memory can be obtained through it, primarily > + through the **pmalloc()** allocator. The exact writability state of the > + memory obtained from **pmalloc()** and friends can be configured when > + creating the pool. At any point it is possible to transition to a less > + permissive write status the memory currently associated to the pool. > + Once memory has become read-only, it the only valid operation, beside ... become read-only, the only valid operation > + reading, is to released it, by destroying the pool it belongs to. > + > + > +Protecting dynamically allocated memory > +--------------------------------------- > + > +When dealing with dynamically allocated memory, three options are > + available for configuring its writability state: > + > +- **Options selected when creating a pool** > + When creating the pool, it is possible to choose one of the following: > + - **PMALLOC_MODE_RO** > + - Writability at allocation time: *WRITABLE* > + - Writability at protection time: *NONE* > + - **PMALLOC_MODE_WR** > + - Writability at allocation time: *WRITABLE* > + - Writability at protection time: *WRITE-RARE* > + - **PMALLOC_MODE_AUTO_RO** > + - Writability at allocation time: > + - the latest allocation: *WRITABLE* > + - every other allocation: *NONE* > + - Writability at protection time: *NONE* > + - **PMALLOC_MODE_AUTO_WR** > + - Writability at allocation time: > + - the latest allocation: *WRITABLE* > + - every other allocation: *WRITE-RARE* > + - Writability at protection time: *WRITE-RARE* > + - **PMALLOC_MODE_START_WR** > + - Writability at allocation time: *WRITE-RARE* > + - Writability at protection time: *WRITE-RARE* For me this part is completely blind. Maybe arranging this as a table would make the states more clearly visible. > + > + **Remarks:** > + - The "AUTO" modes perform automatic protection of the content, whenever > + the current vmap_area is used up and a new one is allocated. > + - At that point, the vmap_area being phased out is protected. > + - The size of the vmap_area depends on various parameters. > + - It might not be possible to know for sure *when* certain data will > + be protected. > + - The functionality is provided as tradeoff between hardening and speed. > + - Its usefulness depends on the specific use case at hand > + - The "START_WR" mode is the only one which provides immediate protection, at the cost of speed. > + > +- **Protecting the pool** > + This is achieved with **pmalloc_protect_pool()** > + - Any vmap_area currently in the pool is write-protected according to its initial configuration. > + - Any residual space still available from the current vmap_area is lost, as the area is protected. > + - **protecting a pool after every allocation will likely be very wasteful** > + - Using PMALLOC_MODE_START_WR is likely a better choice. > + > +- **Upgrading the protection level** > + This is achieved with **pmalloc_make_pool_ro()** > + - it turns the present content of a write-rare pool into read-only > + - can be useful when the content of the memory has settled > + > + > +Caveats > +------- > +- Freeing of memory is not supported. Pages will be returned to the > + system upon destruction of their memory pool. > + > +- The address range available for vmalloc (and thus for pmalloc too) is > + limited, on 32-bit systems. However it shouldn't be an issue, since not no comma ^ > + much data is expected to be dynamically allocated and turned into > + write-protected. > + > +- Regarding SMP systems, changing state of pages and altering mappings > + requires performing cross-processor synchronizations of page tables. > + This is an additional reason for limiting the use of write rare. > + > +- Not only the pmalloc memory must be protected, but also any reference to > + it that might become the target for an attack. The attack would replace > + a reference to the protected memory with a reference to some other, > + unprotected, memory. > + > +- The users of rare write must take care of ensuring the atomicity of the > + action, respect to the way they use the data being altered; for example, > + take a lock before making a copy of the value to modify (if it's > + relevant), then alter it, issue the call to rare write and finally > + release the lock. Some special scenario might be exempt from the need > + for locking, but in general rare-write must be treated as an operation > + that can incur into races. > + > +- pmalloc relies on virtual memory areas and will therefore use more > + tlb entries. It still does a better job of it, compared to invoking > + vmalloc for each allocation, but it is undeniably less optimized wrt to > + TLB use than using the physmap directly, through kmalloc or similar. > + > + > +Utilization > +----------- > + > +**add examples here** > + > +API > +--- > + > +.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/prmem.h > +.. kernel-doc:: mm/prmem.c > +.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/prmemextra.h > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index ea979a5a9ec9..246b1a1cc8bb 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -9463,6 +9463,7 @@ F: include/linux/prmemextra.h > F: mm/prmem.c > F: mm/test_write_rare.c > F: mm/test_pmalloc.c > +F: Documentation/core-api/prmem.rst I think the MAINTAINERS update can go in one chunk as the last patch in the series. > MEMORY MANAGEMENT > L: linux-mm@...ck.org > -- > 2.17.1 > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
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.