Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] mseal, system mappings: enable arm64

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 04:48:23PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:43 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:17:10AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:12 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> [250226 00:26]:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:26:50PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:20 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
> > > > > > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:52:43PM +0000, jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Provide support for CONFIG_MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS on arm64, covering
> > > > > > > > the vdso, vvar, and compat-mode vectors and sigpage mappings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Production release testing passes on Android and Chrome OS.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is pretty limited (yes yes I know android is massive etc. but we must
> > > > > > > account for all the weird and wonderful arm64 devices out there in context of
> > > > > > > upstream :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you looking through all arm64-code relating to vdso, vvar, compat-mode
> > > > > > > vectors, sigpage mapping and ensured nothing kernel-side relies upon relocation?
> > > > > > > Some arches actually seem to want to do this. Pretty sure PPC does... so a bit
> > > > > > > nervous of that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you please point out where PPC munmap/mremap the vdso ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Previously, when you mentioned that, I thought you meant user space in
> > > > > > PPC, I didn't realize that you meant that kernel code in PPC.  I
> > > > > > tried, but didn't find anything, hence asking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff, please stick to replying to review. 'Have you looking through all
> > > > > arm64-code'.
> > > > >
> I checked the kernel code and couldn't find any instances of kernel
> unmap/remap system mapping in any architecture. But I could be wrong,
> so I've also included developers from different architectures since
> V1, and hoping to get some insight.

Thanks, yeah me also. Perhaps you said somewhere but I missed, apologies if
so. Might be worth adding explicitly to commit messages, though I think you
allude to it actually.

>
> > > > > I ended up doing this myself yesterday and found no issues, as with x86-64.
> > > > >
> Thank you for double checking.

No problem, in the went was fairly quick.

>
> > > > > I said I'm _pretty sure_ PPC does this. Liam mentioned something about
> > > > > it. We can discuss it, and I can find specifics if + when you try to add
> > > > > this to PPC.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > PPC allows the vma to be munmapped then detects and falls back to the
> > > > slower method, iirc.
> > > >
> > > Is this code in the kernel or userspace?
> > >
> > > If PPC doesn't want to create vdso for all its userspace apps, we
> > > could instead "don't create" vdso during the execve call.
> > >
> > >
> > > > They were against the removal of the fallback; other archs also have
> > > > this infrastructure.  Really, if we fixed the fallback to work for
> > > > all platforms then it would probably also remove the possibility of a
> > > > remap over the VDSO being a problem (if it is today, which still isn't
> > > > clear?).
> > > >
> > > Any past thread/communication about this that I can read ?
> >
> > Jeff, I'm sure you don't intend to, but I find it quite disrespectful that you
> > ignored my feedback here (and elsewhere, regarding you ignoring 4 sets of
> > feedback).
> >
> I'm just interested in the details :),  If we know why PPC needs to
> unmap/remap vdso, then there are additional data points to consider,
> when we develop pre-process level control for this feature. But sure,
> we can postpone this.
>
> > This?
> >
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13.4/source/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso.c#L236
> >
> OK, you meant the failed case ? i.e. when install_special_mappings
> failed ? That is a case that I haven't considered. It looks like error
> handling, and I was expecting the install_special_mappings to never
> fail, maybe I'm wrong here for PPC.
>
> > Was [0] a relevant discussion?
> >
> Sorry, I'm kind of lost.  This link doesn't give a reason why PPC
> needs to be unmap. If it is due to CRIU or  other user space apps,
> that is not an architecture dependency, maybe a distribution
> dependency.

Yeah I actually think the web might be somewhat tangled here, I don't know
but...

>
> Anyway, we can postpone this discussion for PPC, I don't mean to make
> you spend more time responding to me. Please feel free to ignore this
> one.

...agreed, let's postpone this to there, at least hopefully these links provide
some basis for further research! :)

>
> Thanks.
> -Jeff
>
>
> > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/lhe2mky6ahlk2jzvvfjyongqiseelyx2uy7sbyuso6jcy3b2dq@7ju6cea62jgk/
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Liam

Cheers, Lorenzo




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux