[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:39:59 -0500
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, "oleg@...hat.com"
<oleg@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] [RFC] Implement Trampoline File Descriptor
On 7/28/20 12:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:32 AM Madhavan T. Venkataraman
> <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Thanks. See inline..
>>
>> On 7/28/20 10:13 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com
>>>> Sent: 28 July 2020 14:11
>>> ...
>>>> The kernel creates the trampoline mapping without any permissions. When
>>>> the trampoline is executed by user code, a page fault happens and the
>>>> kernel gets control. The kernel recognizes that this is a trampoline
>>>> invocation. It sets up the user registers based on the specified
>>>> register context, and/or pushes values on the user stack based on the
>>>> specified stack context, and sets the user PC to the requested target
>>>> PC. When the kernel returns, execution continues at the target PC.
>>>> So, the kernel does the work of the trampoline on behalf of the
>>>> application.
>>> Isn't the performance of this going to be horrid?
>> It takes about the same amount of time as getpid(). So, it is
>> one quick trip into the kernel. I expect that applications will
>> typically not care about this extra overhead as long as
>> they are able to run.
> What did you test this on? A page fault on any modern x86_64 system
> is much, much, much, much slower than a syscall.
I tested it in on a KVM guest running Ubuntu. So, when you say
that a page fault is much slower, do you mean a regular page
fault that is handled through the VM layer? Here is the relevant code
in do_user_addr_fault():
if (unlikely(access_error(hw_error_code, vma))) {
/*
* If it is a user execute fault, it could be a trampoline
* invocation.
*/
if ((hw_error_code & tflags) == tflags &&
trampfd_fault(vma, regs)) {
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
return;
}
bad_area_access_error(regs, hw_error_code, address, vma);
return;
}
/*
* If for any reason at all we couldn't handle the fault,
* make sure we exit gracefully rather than endlessly redo
* the fault. Since we never set FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT, if
* we get VM_FAULT_RETRY back, the mmap_sem has been unlocked.
*
* Note that handle_userfault() may also release and reacquire mmap_sem
* (and not return with VM_FAULT_RETRY), when returning to userland to
* repeat the page fault later with a VM_FAULT_NOPAGE retval
* (potentially after handling any pending signal during the return to
* userland). The return to userland is identified whenever
* FAULT_FLAG_USER|FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE are both set in flags.
*/
fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, address, flags);
trampfd faults are instruction faults that go through a different code
path than the one that calls handle_mm_fault().
Could you clarify?
Thanks.
Madhavan
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
