[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:36:48 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Igor Stoppa <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>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:41:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> To clarify some of this thread, I think that the fact that rare_write
>> uses an mm_struct and alias mappings under the hood should be
>> completely invisible to users of the API. No one should ever be
>> handed a writable pointer to rare_write memory (except perhaps during
>> bootup or when initializing a large complex data structure that will
>> be rare_write but isn't yet, e.g. the policy db).
>
> Being able to use pointers would make it far easier to do atomics and
> other things though.
This stuff is called *rare* write for a reason. Do we really want to allow atomics beyond just store-release? Taking a big lock and then writing in the right order should cover everything, no?
>
>> For example, there could easily be architectures where having a
>> writable alias is problematic.
>
> Mostly we'd just have to be careful of cache aliases, alignment should
> be able to sort that I think.
>
>> If you have multiple pools and one mm_struct per pool, you'll need a
>> way to find the mm_struct from a given allocation.
>
> Or keep track of it externally. For example by context. If you modify
> page-tables you pick the page-table pool, if you modify selinux state,
> you pick the selinux pool.
>
>> Regardless of how the mm_structs are set up, changing rare_write
>> memory to normal memory or vice versa will require a global TLB flush
>> (all ASIDs and global pages) on all CPUs, so having extra mm_structs
>> doesn't seem to buy much.
>
> The way I understand it, the point is that if you stick page-tables and
> selinux state in different pools, a stray write in one will never affect
> the other.
>
Hmm. That’s not totally crazy, but the API would need to be carefully designed. And some argument would have to be made as to why it’s better to use a different address space as opposed to checking in software along the lines of the uaccess checking.
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.
