[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151127093529.GX3109@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:35:29 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Yury <yury.norov@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
David Keitel <dkeitel@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT] arm64: kasan: Make KASAN work with 16K pages + 48
bit VA
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:12:28AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 07:40 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 26 November 2015 at 14:14, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> >> Currently kasan assumes that shadow memory covers one or more entire PGDs.
> >> That's not true for 16K pages + 48bit VA space, where PGDIR_SIZE is bigger
> >> than the whole shadow memory.
> >>
> >> This patch tries to fix that case.
> >> clear_page_tables() is a new replacement of clear_pgs(). Instead of always
> >> clearing pgds it clears top level page table entries that entirely belongs
> >> to shadow memory.
> >> In addition to 'tmp_pg_dir' we now have 'tmp_pud' which is used to store
> >> puds that now might be cleared by clear_page_tables.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Suzuki K. Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
> >
> > I would argue that the Kasan code is complicated enough, and we should
> > avoid complicating it even further for a configuration that is highly
> > theoretical in nature.
> >
> > In a 16k configuration, the 4th level only adds a single bit of VA
> > space (which is, as I understand it, exactly the issue you need to
> > address here since the top level page table has only 2 entries and
> > hence does not divide by 8 cleanly), which means you are better off
> > using 3 levels unless you *really* need more than 128 TB of VA space.
> >
> > So can't we just live with the limitation, and keep the current code?
>
> No objections from my side. Let's keep the current code.
Ard had a good point, so fine by me as well.
--
Catalin
--
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