On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:58:22AM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> 在 2022/3/18 3:00, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 02:12:02PM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> > > @@ -628,6 +647,25 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd)
> > > #define pud_leaf(pud) pud_sect(pud)
> > > #define pud_valid(pud) pte_valid(pud_pte(pud))
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK
> > > +static inline bool pte_user_accessible_page(pte_t pte)
> > > +{
> > > + return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_VALID) && (pte_val(pte) & PTE_USER);
> > > +}
[...]
> > Do we care about PROT_NONE mappings here? They have the valid bit
> > cleared but pte_present() is true.
> >
>
> PTC will not check this special type(PROT_NONE) of page.
PROT_NONE is just a permission but since we don't have independent read
and write bits in the pte, we implement it as an invalid pte (bit 0
cleared). The other content of the pte is fine, so pte_pfn() should
still work. PTC could as well check this, I don't think it hurts.
> > > +static inline bool pmd_user_accessible_page(pmd_t pmd)
> > > +{
> > > + return pmd_leaf(pmd) && (pmd_val(pmd) & PTE_VALID) &&
> > > + (pmd_val(pmd) & PTE_USER);
> > > +}
> >
> > pmd_leaf() implies valid, so you can skip it if that's the aim.
>
> PTC only checks whether the memory block corresponding to the pmd_leaf type
> can access, for !pmd_leaf, PTC checks at the pte level. So i think this is
> necessary.
My point is that the (pmd_val(pmd) & PTE_VALID) check is superfluous
since that's covered by pmd_leaf() already.
--
Catalin
