On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:43:00AM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM, Ram Pai <[1]linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:19:12PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hi Li,> > Li Wang <[2]liwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > ltp/mprotect04[1] crashed by SEGV_PKUERR on ppc64(LPAR on P730,
> Power 8
> > > 8247-22L) with kernel-v4.16.0-rc4.
> > >
> > > 10000000-10020000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 167223 mprotect04
> > > 10020000-10030000 r--p 00010000 fd:00 167223 mprotect04
> > > 10030000-10040000 rw-p 00020000 fd:00 167223 mprotect04
> > > 1001a380000-1001a3b0000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
> > > 7fffa6c60000-7fffa6c80000 --xp 00000000 00:00 0
> > >
> > > &exec_func = 0x10030170
> > >
> > > &func = 0x7fffa6c60170
> > >
> > > While perform
> > > "(*func)();" we get the
> > > segmentation fault.
> > >
> > >
> > > strace log:
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > mprotect(0x7fffaed00000, 131072, PROT_EXEC) = 0
> > > rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, NULL, [], 8) = 0
> > > --- SIGSEGV {si_signo=SIGSEGV, si_code=SEGV_PKUERR,
> si_addr=0x7fffaed00170}
> > > ---
> >
> > Looks like a bug to me.
> >
> > Please Cc linuxppc-dev on powerpc bugs.
> >
> > I also can't reproduce this failure on my machine.
> > Not sure what's going on?
>
> I could reproduce it on a power7 lpar. But not on a power8 lpar.
>
> The problem seems to be that the cpu generates a key exception if
> the page with Read/Write-disable-but-execute-enable key is executed
> on power7. If I enable read on that key, the exception disappears.
>
> After adding read permission on that key, reproducer get PASS on my power8
> machine too.
> (mprotect(..,PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC))
>
>
> BTW: the testcase executes
> mprotect(..,PROT_EXEC).
> The mprotect(, PROT_EXEC) system call internally generates a
> execute-only key and associates it with the pages in the address-range.
>
> Now since Li Wang claims that he can reproduce it on power8 as well, i
> am wondering if the slightly different cpu behavior is dependent on the
> version of the firmware/microcode?
>
> I also run this reproducer on series ppc kvm machines, but none of them
> get the FAIL.
> If you need some more HW info, pls let me know.
Can you try the following patch and see if it solves your problem.
It only works on power7 lpar machine.
But for p8 lpar, it still get failure as that before, the thing I wondered is
that why not disable the pkey_execute_disable_supported on p8 machine?
I tried to modify your patch and get PASS with the mprotect04 test on power8 lpar machine.
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
@@ -105,7 +105,9 @@ int pkey_initialize(void)
* The device tree cannot be relied to indicate support for
* execute_disable support. Instead we use a PVR check.
*/
- if (pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7p))
+ if (pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7p) \
+ || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8E) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8NVL) \
+ || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8))
pkey_execute_disable_supported = false;
else
pkey_execute_disable_supported = true;
@@ -395,7 +397,7 @@ int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int prot,
* The requested protection is execute-only. Hence let's use an
* execute-only pkey.
*/
- if (prot == PROT_EXEC) {
+ if (prot == PROT_EXEC && pkey_execute_disable_supported) {
pkey = execute_only_pkey(vma->vm_mm);
if (pkey > 0)
return pkey;
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
@@ -105,7 +105,9 @@ int pkey_initialize(void)
* The device tree cannot be relied to indicate support for
* execute_disable support. Instead we use a PVR check.
*/
- if (pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7p))
+ if (pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER7p) \
+ || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8E) || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8NVL) \
+ || pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER8))
pkey_execute_disable_supported = false;
else
pkey_execute_disable_supported = true;
@@ -395,7 +397,7 @@ int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int prot,
* The requested protection is execute-only. Hence let's use an
* execute-only pkey.
*/
- if (prot == PROT_EXEC) {
+ if (prot == PROT_EXEC && pkey_execute_disable_supported) {
pkey = execute_only_pkey(vma->vm_mm);
if (pkey > 0)
return pkey;
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
index c269817..184a10a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int prot,
* The requested protection is execute-only. Hence let's use an
* execute-only pkey.
*/
- if (prot == PROT_EXEC) {
+ if (prot == PROT_EXEC && pkey_execute_disable_supported) {
pkey = execute_only_pkey(vma->vm_mm);
if (pkey > 0)
return pkey;
Thanks
RP
--
Li Wang
liwang@xxxxxxxxxx
liwang@xxxxxxxxxx