From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] arm64: mm: add support for page table check
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:00:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YjOFNEvj7EfBasCI@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220317141203.3646253-4-tongtiangen@huawei.com>
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);
> +}
There is another class of user mappings, execute-only, that have both
PTE_USER and PTE_UXN cleared. So this logic should be:
pte_valid(pte) && (pte_user(pte) || pte_user_exec(pte))
with pte_user() as:
#define pte_user(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & PTE_USER))
Do we care about PROT_NONE mappings here? They have the valid bit
cleared but pte_present() is true.
> +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.
Similar comment to the pte variant on execute-only and PROT_NONE
mappings.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] arm64: mm: add support for page table check
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:00:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YjOFNEvj7EfBasCI@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220317141203.3646253-4-tongtiangen@huawei.com>
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);
> +}
There is another class of user mappings, execute-only, that have both
PTE_USER and PTE_UXN cleared. So this logic should be:
pte_valid(pte) && (pte_user(pte) || pte_user_exec(pte))
with pte_user() as:
#define pte_user(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & PTE_USER))
Do we care about PROT_NONE mappings here? They have the valid bit
cleared but pte_present() is true.
> +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.
Similar comment to the pte variant on execute-only and PROT_NONE
mappings.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] arm64: mm: add support for page table check
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:00:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YjOFNEvj7EfBasCI@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220317141203.3646253-4-tongtiangen@huawei.com>
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);
> +}
There is another class of user mappings, execute-only, that have both
PTE_USER and PTE_UXN cleared. So this logic should be:
pte_valid(pte) && (pte_user(pte) || pte_user_exec(pte))
with pte_user() as:
#define pte_user(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & PTE_USER))
Do we care about PROT_NONE mappings here? They have the valid bit
cleared but pte_present() is true.
> +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.
Similar comment to the pte variant on execute-only and PROT_NONE
mappings.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-17 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-17 14:11 [PATCH -next 0/4]mm: page_table_check: add support on arm64 and riscv Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:11 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:11 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` [PATCH -next 1/4] mm: page_table_check: move pxx_user_accessible_page into x86 Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` [PATCH -next 2/4] mm: page_table_check: add hooks to public helpers Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` [PATCH -next 3/4] arm64: mm: add support for page table check Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 19:00 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2022-03-17 19:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-17 19:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-18 3:58 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-18 3:58 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-18 3:58 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-18 17:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-18 17:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-18 17:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-21 6:15 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-21 6:15 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-21 6:15 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-21 16:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-21 16:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-21 16:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-22 3:07 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-22 3:07 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-22 3:07 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` [PATCH -next 4/4] riscv: " Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-03-17 14:12 ` Tong Tiangen
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=YjOFNEvj7EfBasCI@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=palmerdabbelt@google.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tongtiangen@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.