[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABi2SkX9koX7-bEwt5uo-QpC4yvHr_GMkGXZbPPN5G1PUL1AVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:00:49 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sroettger@...gle.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
david@...hat.com, adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jorgelo@...omium.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] /proc/pid/smaps: add mseal info for vma
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:43 AM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 8:24 PM <jeffxu@...omium.org> wrote:
> > Add sp in /proc/pid/smaps to indicate vma is sealed
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst | 1 +
> > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 3 +++
> > include/linux/mm.h | 5 +++++
> > mm/internal.h | 5 -----
> > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > index 7c3a565ffbef..400217a1589c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > @@ -571,6 +571,7 @@ encoded manner. The codes are the following:
> > um userfaultfd missing tracking
> > uw userfaultfd wr-protect tracking
> > ss shadow stack page
> > + sp sealed page
>
> Nit: Why "page"? The sealing is a property of the VMA, not of the
> pages mapped into it. Maybe "sealed area" and an abbreviation like
> "sl" would make sense?
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 587d34879865..8600564898fa 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -314,6 +314,11 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
> > #define VM_NOHUGEPAGE 0x40000000 /* MADV_NOHUGEPAGE marked this vma */
> > #define VM_MERGEABLE 0x80000000 /* KSM may merge identical pages */
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > +/* VM is sealed, in vm_flags */
> > +#define VM_SEALED _BITUL(63)
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0 32 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_1 33 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
>
> Other 64-bit flags are defined further down; maybe it would make sense
> to move this definition below the definition of VM_ALLOW_ANY_UNCACHED,
> so that the definitions are sorted by the number of the bit?
Sure. I will update.
Thanks!
-Jeff
Powered by blists - more mailing lists