linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm: Introduce MAP_BELOW

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]

Message-ID: <pbotlphw77fkfacldtpxfjcs2w5nhb2uvxszv5rmlrhjm42akd@4pvcqb7ojq4v>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:46:42 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 	Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
 Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
 	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>,
 	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
 Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, 	WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 Helge Deller <deller@....de>, 	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
 	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
 	Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
 	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
 	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 	Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
 	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
 loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, 	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
 sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, 	linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm: Introduce MAP_BELOW_HINT

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:26:52AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:47:47AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:15:57AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > Some applications rely on placing data in free bits addresses allocated
> > > by mmap. Various architectures (eg. x86, arm64, powerpc) restrict the
> > > address returned by mmap to be less than the 48-bit address space,
> > > unless the hint address uses more than 47 bits (the 48th bit is reserved
> > > for the kernel address space).
> > > 
> > > The riscv architecture needs a way to similarly restrict the virtual
> > > address space. On the riscv port of OpenJDK an error is thrown if
> > > attempted to run on the 57-bit address space, called sv57 [1].  golang
> > > has a comment that sv57 support is not complete, but there are some
> > > workarounds to get it to mostly work [2].

I also saw libmozjs crashing with 57-bit address space on x86.

> > > These applications work on x86 because x86 does an implicit 47-bit
> > > restriction of mmap() address that contain a hint address that is less
> > > than 48 bits.
> > > 
> > > Instead of implicitly restricting the address space on riscv (or any
> > > current/future architecture), a flag would allow users to opt-in to this
> > > behavior rather than opt-out as is done on other architectures. This is
> > > desirable because it is a small class of applications that do pointer
> > > masking.

You reiterate the argument about "small class of applications". But it
makes no sense to me.

With full address space by default, this small class of applications is
going to *broken* unless they would handle RISC-V case specifically.

On other hand, if you limit VA to 128TiB by default (like many
architectures do[1]) everything would work without intervention.
And if an app needs wider address space it would get it with hint opt-in,
because it is required on x86-64 anyway. Again, no RISC-V-specific code.

I see no upside with your approach. Just worse user experience.

[1] See va_high_addr_switch test case in https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile#n115

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov