[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200819114244.GT752365@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:42:44 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create
"secret" memory areas
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:47:54PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.08.20 16:15, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
> >
> > v4 changes:
> > * rebase on v5.9-rc1
> > * Do not redefine PMD_PAGE_ORDER in fs/dax.c, thanks Kirill
> > * Make secret mappings exclusive by default and only require flags to
> > memfd_secret() system call for uncached mappings, thanks again Kirill :)
> >
> > v3 changes:
> > * Squash kernel-parameters.txt update into the commit that added the
> > command line option.
> > * Make uncached mode explicitly selectable by architectures. For now enable
> > it only on x86.
> >
> > v2 changes:
> > * Follow Michael's suggestion and name the new system call 'memfd_secret'
> > * Add kernel-parameters documentation about the boot option
> > * Fix i386-tinyconfig regression reported by the kbuild bot.
> > CONFIG_SECRETMEM now depends on !EMBEDDED to disable it on small systems
> > from one side and still make it available unconditionally on
> > architectures that support SET_DIRECT_MAP.
> >
> >
> > The file descriptor backing secret memory mappings is created using a
> > dedicated memfd_secret system call The desired protection mode for the
> > memory is configured using flags parameter of the system call. The mmap()
> > of the file descriptor created with memfd_secret() will create a "secret"
> > memory mapping. The pages in that mapping will be marked as not present in
> > the direct map and will have desired protection bits set in the user page
> > table. For instance, current implementation allows uncached mappings.
> >
> > Although normally Linux userspace mappings are protected from other users,
> > such secret mappings are useful for environments where a hostile tenant is
> > trying to trick the kernel into giving them access to other tenants
> > mappings.
> >
> > Additionally, the secret mappings may be used as a mean to protect guest
> > memory in a virtual machine host.
> >
>
> Just a general question. I assume such pages (where the direct mapping
> was changed) cannot get migrated - I can spot a simple alloc_page(). So
> essentially a process can just allocate a whole bunch of memory that is
> unmovable, correct? Is there any limit? Is it properly accounted towards
> the process (memctl) ?
The memory as accounted in the same way like with mlock(), so normal
user won't be able to allocate more than RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists