linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Allow vmalloc regions to be set with set_memory

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:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:51:39 +0000
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
Cc:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>, steve.capper@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Allow vmalloc regions to be set with set_memory_*

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:47:20AM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/1/18 19:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:10:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> Something along these lines, perhaps?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> >> index 3571c7309c5e..bda0a776c58e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> >>  #include <linux/mm.h>
> >>  #include <linux/module.h>
> >> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >>  #include <linux/sched.h>
> >>
> >>  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> >> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr
> >>         unsigned long end = start + size;
> >>         int ret;
> >>         struct page_change_data data;
> >> +       struct vm_struct *area;
> >>
> >>         if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(addr)) {
> >>                 start &= PAGE_MASK;
> >> @@ -51,10 +53,14 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr,
> >>                 WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> >>         }
> >>
> >> -       if (start < MODULES_VADDR || start >= MODULES_END)
> >> -               return -EINVAL;
> >> -
> >> -       if (end < MODULES_VADDR || end >= MODULES_END)
> >> +       /*
> >> +        * Check whether the [addr, addr + size) interval is entirely
> >> +        * covered by precisely one VM area that has the VM_ALLOC flag set
> >> +        */
> >> +       area = find_vm_area((void *)addr);
> >> +       if (!area ||
> >> +           end > (unsigned long)area->addr + area->size ||
> >> +           !(area->flags & VM_ALLOC))
> >>                 return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >>         data.set_mask = set_mask;
> > 
> > Neat. That fixes the fencepost bug too.
> > 
> > Looks good to me, though as Laura suggested we should have a comment as
> > to why we limit changes to such regions. Fancy taking her wording below
> > and spinning this as a patch?
> > 
> >>>> +       /*
> >>>> +        * This check explicitly excludes most kernel memory. Most kernel
> >>>> +        * memory is mapped with a larger page size and breaking down the
> >>>> +        * larger page size without causing TLB conflicts is very difficult.
> >>>> +        *
> >>>> +        * If you need to call set_memory_* on a range, the recommendation is
> >>>> +        * to use vmalloc since that range is mapped with pages.
> >>>> +        */
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> > 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> After change the flag, it calls only flush_tlb_kernel_range(), so why not use 
> cpu_replace_ttbr1(swapper_pg_dir)? 

We cannot use cpu_replace_ttbr1 here. Other CPUs may be online, and we
have no mechanism to place them in a safe set of page tables while
swapping TTBR1, we'd have to perform a deep copy of tables, and this
would be horrendously expensive.

Using flush_tlb_kernel_range() is sufficient. As modules don't share a
page or section mapping with other users, we can follow a
Break-Before-Make approach. Additionally, they're mapped at page
granularity so we never split or fuse sections anyway. We only modify
the permission bits.

> One more question, does TLB conflict only affect kernel page talbe?

It's harder to solve for the text/linear map as we can't do
Break-Before-Make without potentially unmapping something in active use
(e.g. the code used to implement Break-Before-Make).

> There is no problem when spliting the transparent hugepage, right?

There was a potential problem with huge pages causing TLB conflicts,
which didn't always seem to follow a Break-Before-Make approach.

I believe that Kirill Shutemov's recent THP rework means that
section->table and table->section conversions always go via an invalid
entry, with appropriate TLB invalidation, making that safe. I have not
yet had the chance to verify that yet, however.

Thanks,
Mark.