linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page

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, 30 May 2019 17:31:15 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()



On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures
>> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a
>> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place.
>> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault()
>> must not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can
> 
> This is a funny quirk of the English language.  "must not" means "is not
> allowed to be", not "does not have to be".

You are right. Noted for future. Thanks !

> 
>> @@ -141,6 +142,19 @@ static int __init init_zero_pfn(void)
>>  core_initcall(init_zero_pfn);
>>  
>>  
>> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap)
>> +{
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) {
>> +		preempt_disable();
>> +		if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
>> +			ret = 1;
>> +		preempt_enable();
>> +	}
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>>  #if defined(SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING)
> 
> Comparing this to the canonical implementation (ie x86), it looks similar.
> 
> static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
>         if (!kprobes_built_in())
>                 return 0;
>         if (user_mode(regs))
>                 return 0;
>         /*
>          * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call
>          * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
>          */
>         if (preemptible())
>                 return 0;
>         if (!kprobe_running())
>                 return 0;
>         return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF);
> }
> 
> The two handle preemption differently.  Why is x86 wrong and this one
> correct?

Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed
generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]()
pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is
not this better ?