[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171019125133.GA20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:51:33 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: "Liuwenliang (Lamb)" <liuwenliang@...wei.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
"afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com" <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"cdall@...aro.org" <cdall@...aro.org>,
"marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
"tixy@...aro.org" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"grygorii.strashko@...aro.org" <grygorii.strashko@...aro.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"opendmb@...il.com" <opendmb@...il.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jiazhenghua <jiazhenghua@...wei.com>,
Dailei <dylix.dailei@...wei.com>,
Zengweilin <zengweilin@...wei.com>,
Heshaoliang <heshaoliang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] change memory_is_poisoned_16 for aligned error
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:27:40AM +0000, Liuwenliang (Lamb) wrote:
> >> - I don't understand why this is necessary. memory_is_poisoned_16()
> >> already handles unaligned addresses?
> >>
> >> - If it's needed on ARM then presumably it will be needed on other
> >> architectures, so CONFIG_ARM is insufficiently general.
> >>
> >> - If the present memory_is_poisoned_16() indeed doesn't work on ARM,
> >> it would be better to generalize/fix it in some fashion rather than
> >> creating a new variant of the function.
>
>
> >Yes, I think it will be better to fix the current function rather then
> >have 2 slightly different copies with ifdef's.
> >Will something along these lines work for arm? 16-byte accesses are
> >not too common, so it should not be a performance problem. And
> >probably modern compilers can turn 2 1-byte checks into a 2-byte check
> >where safe (x86).
>
> >static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_16(unsigned long addr)
> >{
> > u8 *shadow_addr = (u8 *)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr);
> >
> > if (shadow_addr[0] || shadow_addr[1])
> > return true;
> > /* Unaligned 16-bytes access maps into 3 shadow bytes. */
> > if (unlikely(!IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE)))
> > return memory_is_poisoned_1(addr + 15);
> > return false;
> >}
>
> Thanks for Andrew Morton and Dmitry Vyukov's review.
> If the parameter addr=0xc0000008, now in function:
> static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_16(unsigned long addr)
> {
> --- //shadow_addr = (u16 *)(KASAN_OFFSET+0x18000001(=0xc0000008>>3)) is not
> --- // unsigned by 2 bytes.
> u16 *shadow_addr = (u16 *)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr);
>
> /* Unaligned 16-bytes access maps into 3 shadow bytes. */
> if (unlikely(!IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE)))
> return *shadow_addr || memory_is_poisoned_1(addr + 15);
> ---- //here is going to be error on arm, specially when kernel has not finished yet.
> ---- //Because the unsigned accessing cause DataAbort Exception which is not
> ---- //initialized when kernel is starting.
> return *shadow_addr;
> }
>
> I also think it is better to fix this problem.
What about using get_unaligned() ?
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists