[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 20:28:33 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
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>,
linux-security-module <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>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] prmem: pratomic-long
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:28:16PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:58:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > Like mentioned elsewhere; if you do write_enable() + write_disable()
>> > thingies, it all becomes:
>> >
>> > write_enable();
>> > atomic_foo(&bar);
>> > write_disable();
>> >
>> > No magic gunk infested duplication at all. Of course, ideally you'd then
>> > teach objtool about this (or a GCC plugin I suppose) to ensure any
>> > enable reached a disable.
>>
>> Isn't the issue here that we don't want to change the page tables for the
>> mapping of &bar, but instead want to create a temporary writable alias
>> at a random virtual address?
>>
>> So you'd want:
>>
>> wbar = write_enable(&bar);
>> atomic_foo(wbar);
>> write_disable(wbar);
>>
>> which is probably better expressed as a map/unmap API. I suspect this
>> would also be the only way to do things for cmpxchg() loops, where you
>> want to create the mapping outside of the loop to minimise your time in
>> the critical section.
>
> Ah, so I was thikning that the altnerative mm would have stuff in the
> same location, just RW instead of RO.
I was hoping for the same location too. That allows use to use a gcc
plugin to mark, say, function pointer tables, as read-only, and
annotate their rare updates with write_rare() without any
recalculation.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
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.
