[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180426174714.4jtb72q56w3xonsa@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:47:14 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm, arm64: untag user addresses in mm/gup.c
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:53:13PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index 76af4cfeaf68..fb375de7d40d 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -386,6 +386,8 @@ struct page *follow_page_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> struct page *page;
> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>
> + address = untagged_addr(address);
> +
> *page_mask = 0;
>
> /* make this handle hugepd */
Does having a tagged address here makes any difference? I couldn't hit a
failure with my simple tests (LD_PRELOAD a library that randomly adds
tags to pointers returned by malloc).
> @@ -647,6 +649,8 @@ static long __get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
> if (!nr_pages)
> return 0;
>
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> +
> VM_BUG_ON(!!pages != !!(gup_flags & FOLL_GET));
>
> /*
> @@ -801,6 +805,8 @@ int fixup_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> int ret, major = 0;
>
> + address = untagged_addr(address);
> +
> if (unlocked)
> fault_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY;
>
> @@ -854,6 +860,8 @@ static __always_inline long __get_user_pages_locked(struct task_struct *tsk,
> long ret, pages_done;
> bool lock_dropped;
>
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> +
> if (locked) {
> /* if VM_FAULT_RETRY can be returned, vmas become invalid */
> BUG_ON(vmas);
Isn't __get_user_pages() untagging enough to cover this case as well?
Can this function not cope with tagged pointers?
> @@ -1751,6 +1759,8 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> unsigned long flags;
> int nr = 0;
>
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> +
> start &= PAGE_MASK;
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> @@ -1803,6 +1813,8 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> unsigned long addr, len, end;
> int nr = 0, ret = 0;
>
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> +
> start &= PAGE_MASK;
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
Have you hit a problem with the fast gup functions and tagged pointers?
The page table walking macros (e.g. p*d_index()) should mask the tag out
already.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists