linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] RISC-V: enable XIP

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: <CAM4kBBKyHSYz+NNDpT=fWseWccsQ4HZ3teBc01jYT2g8j7Ze2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:42:12 +0200
From:   Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Alex Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] RISC-V: enable XIP

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:59 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:46:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > Also, will that memory properly be exposed in the resource tree as
> > > > > System RAM (e.g., /proc/iomem) ? Otherwise some things (/proc/kcore)
> > > > > won't work as expected - the kernel won't be included in a dump.
> > > Do we really need a XIP kernel to included in kdump?
> > > And does not it sound weird to expose flash as System RAM in /proc/iomem? ;-)
> >
> > See my other mail, maybe we actually want something different.
> >
> > >
> > > > I have just checked and it does not appear in /proc/iomem.
> > > >
> > > > Ok your conclusion would be to have struct page, I'm going to implement this
> > > > version then using memblock as you described.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure this is required. With XIP kernel text never gets into RAM, so
> > > it does not seem to require struct page.
> > >
> > > XIP by definition has some limitations relatively to "normal" operation,
> > > so lack of kdump could be one of them.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > >
> > > I might be wrong, but IMHO, artificially creating a memory map for part of
> > > flash would cause more problems in the long run.
> >
> > Can you elaborate?
>
> Nothing particular, just a gut feeling. Usually, when you force something
> it comes out the wrong way later.

It's possible still that MTD_XIP is implemented allowing to write to
the flash used for XIP. While flash is being written, memory map
doesn't make sense at all. I can't come up with a real life example
when it can actually lead to problems but it is indeed weird when
System RAM suddenly becomes unreadable. I really don't think exposing
it in /proc/iomem is a good idea.

> > > BTW, how does XIP account the kernel text on other architectures that
> > > implement it?
> >
> > Interesting point, I thought XIP would be something new on RISC-V (well, at
> > least to me :) ). If that concept exists already, we better mimic what
> > existing implementations do.
>
> I had quick glance at ARM, it seems that kernel text does not have memory
> map and does not show up in System RAM.

Exactly, and I believe ARM64 won't do that too when it gets its own
XIP support (which is underway).

Best regards,
   Vitaly