All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com>
Cc: <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, <Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com>,
	<geert+renesas@glider.be>, <david.daney@cavium.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	<davidlohr@hp.com>, <macro@linux-mips.org>, <chenhc@lemote.com>,
	<richard@nod.at>, <zajec5@gmail.com>, <keescook@chromium.org>,
	<alex@alex-smith.me.uk>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	<blogic@openwrt.org>, <jchandra@broadcom.com>,
	<paul.burton@imgtec.com>, <qais.yousef@imgtec.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	<markos.chandras@imgtec.com>, <dengcheng.zhu@imgtec.com>,
	<manuel.lauss@gmail.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<lars.persson@axis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] MIPS: Setup an instruction emulation in VDSO protected page instead of user stack
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:03:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141010100334.GD4818@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5437232F.60800@imgtec.com>

Hi Leonid,

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:07:11PM -0700, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 10/09/2014 04:40 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> > You could then avoid the whole stack and per-thread thing and just have
> > a maximum of one emuframe dedicated to each thread or allocated on
> > demand, and if there genuinely is a use case for nesting later on, worry
> > about it then.
> 
> As I understand, you propose to allocate some space in mmap.

No, sorry if I wasn't very clear. I just mean that you can get away with
a single kernel managed page per mm, with an emuframe allocated
per-thread which that thread always uses, since they never nest, which I
think simplifies the whole thing significantly.

The allocation could be smarter than that of course in case you have
thousands of threads and only a subset doing lots of FP branches, but a
single thread should never need more than one at a time since the new
signal behaviour effectively makes the delay slot emulation sort of
atomic from the point of view of usermode, and the kernel knows for sure
whether BD emulation is in progress from the PC.

(If there is some other way than signals that I haven't taken into
account that the emulation could be pre-empted then please let me know!)

> > So long as the kernel handles a long sequence of sequential emulated
> > branches gracefully (not necessarily correctly).
> >
> I don't understand a question. Each pair/single instruction is emulated 
> separately but there is some pipeline of that, even in FPU emulator, it 
> is just not this patch issue.

I just mean an (illegal/undefined) sequence of FPU branch instructions
in one anothers delay slots shouldn't be able to crash the kernel.

Actually 2 of them would be enough to verify the kernel didn't get too
confused. Maybe the second will be detected & ignored, or maybe it
doesn't matter if the first emuframe gets overwritten by the second one
from the kernels point of view.

Cheers
James

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com,
	geert+renesas@glider.be, david.daney@cavium.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com,
	davidlohr@hp.com, macro@linux-mips.org, chenhc@lemote.com,
	richard@nod.at, zajec5@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	alex@alex-smith.me.uk, tglx@linutronix.de, blogic@openwrt.org,
	jchandra@broadcom.com, paul.burton@imgtec.com,
	qais.yousef@imgtec.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ralf@linux-mips.org, markos.chandras@imgtec.com,
	dengcheng.zhu@imgtec.com, manuel.lauss@gmail.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, lars.persson@axis.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] MIPS: Setup an instruction emulation in VDSO protected page instead of user stack
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:03:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141010100334.GD4818@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20141010100334.MLUzwX1MLKIXqW1IL09z60PhFBzV71V2dH4_Zz_1HII@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5437232F.60800@imgtec.com>

Hi Leonid,

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:07:11PM -0700, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 10/09/2014 04:40 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> > You could then avoid the whole stack and per-thread thing and just have
> > a maximum of one emuframe dedicated to each thread or allocated on
> > demand, and if there genuinely is a use case for nesting later on, worry
> > about it then.
> 
> As I understand, you propose to allocate some space in mmap.

No, sorry if I wasn't very clear. I just mean that you can get away with
a single kernel managed page per mm, with an emuframe allocated
per-thread which that thread always uses, since they never nest, which I
think simplifies the whole thing significantly.

The allocation could be smarter than that of course in case you have
thousands of threads and only a subset doing lots of FP branches, but a
single thread should never need more than one at a time since the new
signal behaviour effectively makes the delay slot emulation sort of
atomic from the point of view of usermode, and the kernel knows for sure
whether BD emulation is in progress from the PC.

(If there is some other way than signals that I haven't taken into
account that the emulation could be pre-empted then please let me know!)

> > So long as the kernel handles a long sequence of sequential emulated
> > branches gracefully (not necessarily correctly).
> >
> I don't understand a question. Each pair/single instruction is emulated 
> separately but there is some pipeline of that, even in FPU emulator, it 
> is just not this patch issue.

I just mean an (illegal/undefined) sequence of FPU branch instructions
in one anothers delay slots shouldn't be able to crash the kernel.

Actually 2 of them would be enough to verify the kernel didn't get too
confused. Maybe the second will be detected & ignored, or maybe it
doesn't matter if the first emuframe gets overwritten by the second one
from the kernels point of view.

Cheers
James

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-10 10:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-09 20:00 [PATCH v2 0/3] MIPS executable stack protection Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00 ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] MIPS: mips_flush_cache_range is added Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00   ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] MIPS: Setup an instruction emulation in VDSO protected page instead of user stack Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00   ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 22:43   ` James Hogan
2014-10-09 22:43     ` James Hogan
2014-10-09 23:10     ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 23:10       ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 23:40       ` James Hogan
2014-10-09 23:40         ` James Hogan
2014-10-10  0:07         ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-10  0:07           ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-10 10:03           ` James Hogan [this message]
2014-10-10 10:03             ` James Hogan
2014-10-10 10:24             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-10 22:47             ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-10 22:47               ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-10 22:56               ` David Daney
2014-10-10 23:40                 ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-10 23:40                   ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] MIPS: set stack/data protection as non-executable Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 20:00   ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 21:42 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] MIPS executable stack protection David Daney
2014-10-09 22:18   ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 22:18     ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 22:28     ` Paul Burton
2014-10-09 22:28       ` Paul Burton
2014-10-09 22:59     ` David Daney
2014-10-09 22:59       ` David Daney
2014-10-09 23:48       ` Leonid Yegoshin
2014-10-09 23:48         ` Leonid Yegoshin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141010100334.GD4818@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org \
    --to=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
    --cc=Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com \
    --cc=Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex@alex-smith.me.uk \
    --cc=blogic@openwrt.org \
    --cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
    --cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=dengcheng.zhu@imgtec.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=jchandra@broadcom.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=lars.persson@axis.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=manuel.lauss@gmail.com \
    --cc=markos.chandras@imgtec.com \
    --cc=paul.burton@imgtec.com \
    --cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@imgtec.com \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.