[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVzgkhu=kjF4U5MEc+TJmsDJf8pVgnoPH5F4gTdsDF4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:55:48 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] x86/cet/ibt: Add IBT legacy code bitmap setup function
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:52 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/10/19 12:38 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> >>> When an application starts, its highest stack address is determined.
> >>> It uses that as the maximum the bitmap needs to cover.
> >> Huh, I didn't think we ran code from the stack. ;)
> >>
> >> Especially given the way that we implemented the new 5-level-paging
> >> address space, I don't think that expecting code to be below the stack
> >> is a good universal expectation.
> > Yes, you make a good point. However, allowing the application manage the bitmap
> > is the most efficient and flexible. If the loader finds a legacy lib is beyond
> > the bitmap can cover, it can deal with the problem by moving the lib to a lower
> > address; or re-allocate the bitmap.
>
> How could the loader reallocate the bitmap and coordinate with other
> users of the bitmap?
>
> > If the loader cannot allocate a big bitmap to cover all 5-level
> > address space (the bitmap will be large), it can put all legacy lib's
> > at lower address. We cannot do these easily in the kernel.
>
> This is actually an argument to do it in the kernel. The kernel can
> always allocate the virtual space however it wants, no matter how large.
> If we hide the bitmap behind a kernel API then we can put it at high
> 5-level user addresses because we also don't have to worry about the
> high bits confusing userspace.
>
That's a fairly compelling argument.
The bitmap is one bit per page, right? So it's smaller than the
address space by a factor of 8*2^12 == 2^15. This means that, if we
ever get full 64-bit linear addresses reserved entirely for userspace
(which could happen if my perennial request to Intel to split user and
kernel addresses completely happens), then we'll need 2^48 bytes for
the bitmap, which simply does not fit in the address space of a legacy
application.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists