[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNNQGrpq+fBh4OypP9aK+-548vbCbKYiWQnSHESM0SLVzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:51:29 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"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>,
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>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"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 01/10] mm: add Kernel Electric-Fence infrastructure
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 16:24, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
[...]
>
> From other sub-threads it sounds like these addresses are not part of
> the linear/direct map. Having kmalloc return addresses outside of the
> linear map is going to break anything that relies on virt<->phys
> conversions, and is liable to make DMA corrupt memory. There were
> problems of that sort with VMAP_STACK, and this is why kvmalloc() is
> separate from kmalloc().
>
> Have you tested with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL? I'd expect that to scream.
>
> I strongly suspect this isn't going to be safe unless you always use an
> in-place carevout from the linear map (which could be the linear alias
> of a static carevout).
That's an excellent point, thank you! Indeed, on arm64, a version with
naive static-pool screams with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL.
We'll try to put together an arm64 version using a carveout as you suggest.
> [...]
>
> > +static __always_inline void *kfence_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> > +{
> > + return static_branch_unlikely(&kfence_allocation_key) ? __kfence_alloc(s, size, flags) :
> > + NULL;
> > +}
>
> Minor (unrelated) nit, but this would be easier to read as:
>
> static __always_inline void *kfence_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> {
> if (static_branch_unlikely(&kfence_allocation_key))
> return __kfence_alloc(s, size, flags);
> return NULL;
> }
Will fix for v5.
Thanks,
-- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists