linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] Always call constructor for kernel page tables

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: <e79f9aa9-ce1b-4d42-8a61-aebaae1744fc@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:14:18 +0100
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, "Mike Rapoport (IBM)"
 <rppt@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Qi Zheng
 <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-openrisc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Always call constructor for kernel page tables

On 17/03/2025 16:30, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 17/03/2025 14:16, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> The complications in those special pgtable allocators beg the question:
>> does it really make sense to treat efi_mm and init_mm differently in
>> e.g. apply_to_pte_range()? Maybe what we really need is a way to tell if
>> an mm corresponds to user memory or not, and never use split locks for
>> non-user mm's. Feedback and suggestions welcome!
> The difference in treatment is whether or not the ptl is taken, right? So the
> real question is when calling apply_to_pte_range() for efi_mm, is there already
> a higher level serialization mechanism that prevents racy accesses? For init_mm,
> I think this is handled implicitly because there is no way for user space to
> cause apply_to_pte_range() for an arbitrary piece of kernel memory. Although I
> can't even see where apply_to_page_range() is called for efi_mm.

The commit I mentioned above, 61444cde9170 ("ARM: 8591/1: mm: use fully
constructed struct pages for EFI pgd allocations"), shows that
apply_to_page_range() is called from efi_set_mapping_permissions(), and
this indeed hasn't changed. It is itself called from efi_virtmap_init().
I would expect that no locking at all is necessary here, since the
mapping has just been created and surely isn't used yet. Now the
question is where exactly init_mm is special-cased in this manner. I can
see that walk_page_range() does something similar, there may be more
cases. And the other question is whether those functions are ever used
on special mm's, aside from efi_set_mapping_permissions().
> FWIW, contpte.c has mm_is_user() which is used by arm64.

Interesting! But not pretty, that's basically checking that the mm is
not &init_mm or &efi_mm... which wouldn't work for a generic
implementation. It feels like adding some attribute to mm_struct
wouldn't hurt. It looks like we've run out of MMF_* flags though :/

- Kevin