linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: remove limit on the size of read-only section for XIP kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:17:38 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: remove limit on the size of read-only section
 for XIP kernel

On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 09:32:17AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux-xip.lds.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux-xip.lds.S
> > > index 8c3daa1b0531..01f73f2ffecc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux-xip.lds.S
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux-xip.lds.S
> > > @@ -65,10 +65,10 @@ SECTIONS
> > >    * From this point, stuff is considered writable and will be copied to RAM
> > >    */
> > >   	__data_loc = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);		/* location in file */
> > > -	. = KERNEL_LINK_ADDR + XIP_OFFSET;	/* location in memory */
> > > +	. = ALIGN(SZ_2M);			/* location in memory */
> > 
> > You can't use SZ_2M here since it corresponds to PMD_SIZE for rv64 but on
> > rv32 (which is allowed to use xip kernels), it's 4MB. Use SECTION_ALIGN
> > instead.
> 
> SECTION_ALIGN doesn't work unfortunately. For XIP, SECTION_ALIGN is
> L1_CACHE_BYTES which is 64 bytes, but we need at least PMD_SIZE alignment
> to setup virtual mapping.

Sorry, I think I had tunnel vision. The solution is so obvious.

I will send v2 shortly. Thanks so much for spending time reviewing.

Best regards,
Nam
> 
> Ideally we use PMD_SIZE here, but I can't #include that header file.
> Probably we can refactor the header files so that we can #include the
> header file that PMD_SIZE is in. But I am not sure if it's worth it.
> 
> I'm thinking just go for:
> ifdef CONFIG_64_BIT
> 	. = ALIGN(SZ_2M);
> #else
> 	. = ALIGN(SZ_4M);
> #endif
> 
> Or even simpler, just:
> 	. = ALIGN(SZ_4M);
> 
> As much as I hate magic numbers, I think we can give linker script some
> leeway. Perhaps with an explanation why this alignment is chosen?
> 
> Or do you have a better idea?
> 
> Best regards,
> Nam