linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] KVM: arm/arm64: Re-factor setting the Stage 2 entry to exec on fault

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:00:01 +0100
From:   Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        punitagrawal@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] KVM: arm/arm64: Re-factor setting the Stage 2
 entry to exec on fault

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:47:10AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/12/2018 13:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 10/31/2018 11:27 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> >>Stage 2 fault handler marks a page as executable if it is handling an
> >>execution fault or if it was a permission fault in which case the
> >>executable bit needs to be preserved.
> >>
> >>The logic to decide if the page should be marked executable is
> >>duplicated for PMD and PTE entries. To avoid creating another copy
> >>when support for PUD hugepages is introduced refactor the code to
> >>share the checks needed to mark a page table entry as executable.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
> >>Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> >>Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>
> >>Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> >>---
> >>  virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
> >>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>index 59595207c5e1..6912529946fb 100644
> >>--- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>@@ -1475,7 +1475,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>  			  unsigned long fault_status)
> >>  {
> >>  	int ret;
> >>-	bool write_fault, exec_fault, writable, force_pte = false;
> >>+	bool write_fault, writable, force_pte = false;
> >>+	bool exec_fault, needs_exec;
> >
> >New line not required, still within 80 characters.
> >
> >>  	unsigned long mmu_seq;
> >>  	gfn_t gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>  	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> >>@@ -1598,19 +1599,25 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>  	if (exec_fault)
> >>  		invalidate_icache_guest_page(pfn, vma_pagesize);
> >>+	/*
> >>+	 * If we took an execution fault we have made the
> >>+	 * icache/dcache coherent above and should now let the s2
> >
> >Coherent or invalidated with invalidate_icache_guest_page ?
> 
> We also do clean_dcache above if needed. So that makes sure
> the data is coherent. Am I missing something here ?
> 

I think you've got it right.  We have made the icache coherent with the
data/instructions in the page by invalidating the icache.  I think the
comment is ok either way.

Thanks,

    Christoffer