[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131022175219.BB0E3E0090@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:52:19 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@...omorphy.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mm: get ASLR work for hugetlb mappings
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 06:52 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Matthew noticed that hugetlb doesn't participate in ASLR on x86-64.
> > The reason is genereic hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() which is used on
> > x86-64. It doesn't support randomization and use bottom-up unmapped area
> > lookup, instead of usual top-down on x86-64.
>
> I have to wonder if this was on purpose in order to keep the large and
> small mappings separate. We don't *have* to keep them separate this, of
> course, but it makes me wonder.
I haven't seen any evidence that it's on purpose, but who knows...
In x86-specific hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() there's explicit check what is
mm->get_unmapped_area top-down or bottom-up, and doing the same.
> > x86 has arch-specific hugetlb_get_unmapped_area(), but it's used only on
> > x86-32.
> >
> > Let's use arch-specific hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() on x86-64 too.
> > It fixes the issue and make hugetlb use top-down unmapped area lookup.
>
> Shouldn't we fix the generic code instead of further specializing the
> x86 stuff?
For that we need to modify info.low_limit to mm->mmap_legacy_base (which
is x86 specific, no-go) or switch to top-down and set info.high_limit to
mm->mmap_base.
I don't know how it can affect other architectures.
> In any case, you probably also want to run this through: the
> libhugetlbfs tests:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/libhugetlbfs/code/ci/master/tree/tests/
I've got the same fail list for upstream and patched kernel, so no
regression was found.
********** TEST SUMMARY
* 2M
* 32-bit 64-bit
* Total testcases: 107 110
* Skipped: 0 0
* PASS: 98 108
* FAIL: 2 2
* Killed by signal: 7 0
* Bad configuration: 0 0
* Expected FAIL: 0 0
* Unexpected PASS: 0 0
* Strange test result: 0 0
**********
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists