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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:39:30 +0000 From: Steven Price <steven.price@....com> To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>, x86@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] mm: Add generic p?d_large() macros On 01/03/2019 12:30, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:53:01PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> Him Kirill, >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:06:18AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:16:46PM +0000, Steven Price wrote: >>>>>> Note that in terms of the new page walking code, these new defines are >>>>>> only used when walking a page table without a VMA (which isn't currently >>>>>> done), so architectures which don't use p?d_large currently will work >>>>>> fine with the generic versions. They only need to provide meaningful >>>>>> definitions when switching to use the walk-without-a-VMA functionality. >>>>> >>>>> How other architectures would know that they need to provide the helpers >>>>> to get walk-without-a-VMA functionality? This looks very fragile to me. >>>> >>>> Yes, you've got a good point there. This would apply to the p?d_large >>>> macros as well - any arch which (inadvertently) uses the generic version >>>> is likely to be fragile/broken. >>>> >>>> I think probably the best option here is to scrap the generic versions >>>> altogether and simply introduce a ARCH_HAS_PXD_LARGE config option which >>>> would enable the new functionality to those arches that opt-in. Do you >>>> think this would be less fragile? >>> >>> These helpers are useful beyond pagewalker. >>> >>> Can we actually do some grinding and make *all* archs to provide correct >>> helpers? Yes, it's tedious, but not that bad. >> >> Many architectures simply cannot support non-leaf entries at the higher >> levels. I think letting the use a generic helper actually does make sense. > > I disagree. > > It's makes sense if the level doesn't exists on the arch. This is what patch 24 [1] of the series does - if the level doesn't exist then appropriate stubs are provided. > But if the level exists, it will be less frugile to ask the arch to > provide the helper. Even if it is dummy always-false. The problem (as I see it), is we need a reliable set of p?d_large() implementations to be able to walk arbitrary page tables. Either the entire functionality of walking page tables without a VMA has to be an opt-in per architecture, or we need to mandate that every architecture provide these implementations. I could provide an asm-generic header to provide a complete set of dummy implementations for architectures that don't support large pages at all, but that seems a bit overkill when most architectures only need to define 2 or 3 implementations (the rest being provided by the folded-levels automatically). Thanks, Steve [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190227170608.27963-25-steven.price@arm.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists