[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMS-6mfDF6o31yiejP0wmgpEeuoh0PP9QJa-qt0OpiRBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:53:55 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] arm64, kfence: enable KFENCE for ARM64
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:31, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Add architecture specific implementation details for KFENCE and enable
> > KFENCE for the arm64 architecture. In particular, this implements the
> > required interface in <asm/kfence.h>. Currently, the arm64 version does
> > not yet use a statically allocated memory pool, at the cost of a pointer
> > load for each is_kfence_address().
[...]
> > For ARM64, we would like to solicit feedback on what the best option is
> > to obtain a constant address for __kfence_pool. One option is to declare
> > a memory range in the memory layout to be dedicated to KFENCE (like is
> > done for KASAN), however, it is unclear if this is the best available
> > option. We would like to avoid touching the memory layout.
> Given that the pool is relatively small (i.e. when compared with our virtual
> address space), dedicating an area of virtual space sounds like it makes
> the most sense here. How early do you need it to be available?
Note: we're going to send a v4 this or next week with a few other
minor fixes in it. But I think we just don't want to block the entire
series on figuring out what the static-pool arm64 version should do,
especially if we'll have a few iterations with only this patch here
changing.
So the plan will be:
1. Send v4, which could from our point-of-view be picked up for
merging. Unless of course there are more comments.
2. Work out the details for the static-pool arm64 version, since it
doesn't seem trivial to do the same thing as we do for x86. In
preparation for that, v4 will allow the __kfence_pool's attributes to
be defined entirely by <asm/kfence.h>, so that we can fiddle with
sections etc.
3. Send patch switching out the simpler arm64 version here for one
that places __kfence_pool at a static location.
Hopefully that plan is reasonable.
Thanks,
-- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists