linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/5] arm64/crash_core: Export TCR

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]

Message-ID: <351975548.1986001.1578682810951.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:00:10 -0500 (EST)
From:   Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bhupesh linux <bhupesh.linux@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/5] arm64/crash_core: Export TCR_EL1.T1SZ in
 vmcoreinfo



----- Original Message -----
> Hi Bhupesh,
> 
> On 25/12/2019 19:01, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > On 12/12/2019 04:02 PM, James Morse wrote:
> >> On 29/11/2019 19:59, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> >>> vabits_actual variable on arm64 indicates the actual VA space size,
> >>> and allows a single binary to support both 48-bit and 52-bit VA
> >>> spaces.
> >>>
> >>> If the ARMv8.2-LVA optional feature is present, and we are running
> >>> with a 64KB page size; then it is possible to use 52-bits of address
> >>> space for both userspace and kernel addresses. However, any kernel
> >>> binary that supports 52-bit must also be able to fall back to 48-bit
> >>> at early boot time if the hardware feature is not present.
> >>>
> >>> Since TCR_EL1.T1SZ indicates the size offset of the memory region
> >>> addressed by TTBR1_EL1 (and hence can be used for determining the
> >>> vabits_actual value) it makes more sense to export the same in
> >>> vmcoreinfo rather than vabits_actual variable, as the name of the
> >>> variable can change in future kernel versions, but the architectural
> >>> constructs like TCR_EL1.T1SZ can be used better to indicate intended
> >>> specific fields to user-space.
> >>>
> >>> User-space utilities like makedumpfile and crash-utility, need to
> >>> read/write this value from/to vmcoreinfo
> >>
> >> (write?)
> > 
> > Yes, also write so that the vmcoreinfo from an (crashing) arm64 system can
> > be used for
> > analysis of the root-cause of panic/crash on say an x86_64 host using
> > utilities like
> > crash-utility/gdb.
> 
> I read this as as "User-space [...] needs to write to vmcoreinfo".
> 
> 
> >>> for determining if a virtual address lies in the linear map range.
> >>
> >> I think this is a fragile example. The debugger shouldn't need to know
> >> this.
> > 
> > Well that the current user-space utility design, so I am not sure we can
> > tweak that too much.
> > 
> >>> The user-space computation for determining whether an address lies in
> >>> the linear map range is the same as we have in kernel-space:
> >>>
> >>>    #define __is_lm_address(addr)    (!(((u64)addr) & BIT(vabits_actual -
> >>>    1)))
> >>
> >> This was changed with 14c127c957c1 ("arm64: mm: Flip kernel VA space"). If
> >> user-space
> >> tools rely on 'knowing' the kernel memory layout, they must have to
> >> constantly be fixed
> >> and updated. This is a poor argument for adding this to something that
> >> ends up as ABI.
> > 
> > See above. The user-space has to rely on some ABI/guaranteed
> > hardware-symbols which can be
> > used for 'determining' the kernel memory layout.
> 
> I disagree. Everything and anything in the kernel will change. The ABI rules apply to
> stuff exposed via syscalls and kernel filesystems. It does not apply to kernel internals,
> like the memory layout we used yesterday. 14c127c957c1 is a case in point.
> 
> A debugger trying to rely on this sort of thing would have to play catchup whenever it
> changes.

Exactly.  That's the whole point.

The crash utility and makedumpfile are not in the same league as other user-space tools.
They have always had to "play catchup" precisely because they depend upon kernel internals,
which constantly change.

Dave