On 7/26/19 2:20 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Hi Alexandre,
I have a few questions about this patch. Sorry to be dense here ...
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
In order to avoid wasting user address space by using bottom-up mmap
allocation scheme, prefer top-down scheme when possible.
Before:
root@qemuriscv64:~# cat /proc/self/maps
00010000-00016000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
00016000-00017000 r--p 00005000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
00017000-00018000 rw-p 00006000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
00018000-00039000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
1555556000-155556d000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
155556d000-155556e000 r--p 00016000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
155556e000-155556f000 rw-p 00017000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
155556f000-1555570000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
1555570000-1555572000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
1555574000-1555576000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
1555576000-1555674000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
1555674000-1555678000 r--p 000fd000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
1555678000-155567a000 rw-p 00101000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
155567a000-15556a0000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
3fffb90000-3fffbb1000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack]
After:
root@qemuriscv64:~# cat /proc/self/maps
00010000-00016000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
00016000-00017000 r--p 00005000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
00017000-00018000 rw-p 00006000 fe:00 6389 /bin/cat.coreutils
2de81000-2dea2000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
3ff7eb6000-3ff7ed8000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
3ff7ed8000-3ff7fd6000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
3ff7fd6000-3ff7fda000 r--p 000fd000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
3ff7fda000-3ff7fdc000 rw-p 00101000 fe:00 7187 /lib/libc-2.28.so
3ff7fdc000-3ff7fe2000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
3ff7fe4000-3ff7fe6000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
3ff7fe6000-3ff7ffd000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
3ff7ffd000-3ff7ffe000 r--p 00016000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
3ff7ffe000-3ff7fff000 rw-p 00017000 fe:00 7193 /lib/ld-2.28.so
3ff7fff000-3ff8000000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
3fff888000-3fff8a9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack]
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/riscv/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 59a4727ecd6c..6a63973873fd 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -54,6 +54,17 @@ config RISCV
select EDAC_SUPPORT
select ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
select ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE if 64BIT
+ select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT if MMU
+ select HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
+
+config ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MIN
+ default 18
Could you help me understand the rationale behind this constant?
Indeed, I took that from arm64 code and I did not think enough about it:
that's
great you spotted this because that's a way too large value for 32 bits
as it would,
at minimum, make mmap random offset go up to 1GB (18 + 12), which is a
big hole for
this small address space :)
arm and mips propose 8 as default value for 32bits systems which is 1MB
offset at minimum.
+
+# max bits determined by the following formula:
+# VA_BITS - PAGE_SHIFT - 3
I realize that these lines are probably copied from arch/arm64/Kconfig.
But the rationale behind the "- 3" is not immediately obvious. This
apparently originates from commit 8f0d3aa9de57 ("arm64: mm: support
ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS"). Can you provide any additional context here?
The formula comes from commit d07e22597d1d ("mm: mmap: add new /proc tunable
for mmap_base ASLR"), where the author states that "generally a 3-4 bits
less than the
number of bits in the user-space accessible virtual address space
[allows to] give the greatest
flexibility without generating an invalid mmap_base address".
In practice, that limits the mmap random offset to at maximum 1/8 (for -
3) of the total address space.
+config ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX
+ default 33 if 64BIT # SV48 based
The rationale here is clear for Sv48, per the above formula:
(48 - 12 - 3) = 33
+ default 18
However, here it is less clear to me. For Sv39, shouldn't this be
(39 - 12 - 3) = 24
? And what about Sv32?
You're right. Is there a way to distinguish between sv39 and sv48 here ?
Thanks Paul,
Alex
- Paul
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
