Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/18] pkeys-based page table hardening

Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-09-18T17:31:48Z

On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 16:15 +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> This is where I have to apologise to Rick for not having studied his
> series more thoroughly, as patch 17 [2] covers this issue very well in
> the commit message.
>
> It seems fair to say there is no ideal or simple solution, though.
> Rick's patch reserves enough (PTE-mapped) memory for fully splitting the
> linear map, which is relatively simple but not very pleasant. Chatting
> with Ryan Roberts, we figured another approach, improving on solution 1
> mentioned in [2]. It would rely on allocating all PTPs from a special
> pool (without using set_memory_pkey() in pagetable_*_ctor), along those
> lines:

Oh I didn't realize ARM split the direct map now at runtime. IIRC it used to
just map at 4k if there were any permissions configured.

>
> 1. 2 pages are reserved at all times (with the appropriate pkey)
> 2. Try to allocate a 2M block. If needed, use a reserved page as PMD to
> split a PUD. If successful, set its pkey - the entire block can now be
> used for PTPs. Replenish the reserve from the block if needed.
> 3. If no block is available, make an order-2 allocation (4 pages). If
> needed, use 1-2 reserved pages to split PUD/PMD. Set the pkey of the 4
> pages, take 1-2 pages to replenish the reserve if needed.

Oh, good idea!

>
> This ensures that we never run out of PTPs for splitting. We may get
> into an OOM situation more easily due to the order-2 requirement, but
> the risk remains low compared to requiring a 2M block. A bigger concern
> is concurrency - do we need a per-CPU cache? Reserving a 2M block per
> CPU could be very much overkill.
>
> No matter which solution is used, this clearly increases the complexity
> of kpkeys_hardened_pgtables. Mike Rapoport has posted a number of RFCs
> [3][4] that aim at addressing this problem more generally, but no
> consensus seems to have emerged and I'm not sure they would completely
> solve this specific problem either.
>
> For now, my plan is to stick to solution 3 from [2], i.e. force the
> linear map to be PTE-mapped. This is easily done on arm64 as it is the
> default, and is required for rodata=full, unless [1] is applied and the
> system supports BBML2_NOABORT. See [1] for the potential performance
> improvements we'd be missing out on (~5% ballpark).
>

I continue to be surprised that allocation time pkey conversion is not a
performance disaster, even with the directmap pre-split.

> I'm not quite sure
> what the picture looks like on x86 - it may well be more significant as
> Rick suggested.

I think having more efficient direct map permissions is a solvable problem, but
each usage is just a little too small to justify the infrastructure for a good
solution. And each simple solution is a little too much overhead to justify the
usage. So there is a long tail of blocked usages:
- pkeys usages (page tables and secret protection)
- kernel shadow stacks
- More efficient executable code allocations (BPF, kprobe trampolines, etc)

Although the BPF folks started doing their own thing for this. But I don't think
there are any fundamentally unsolvable problems for a generic solution. It's a
question of a leading killer usage to justify the infrastructure. Maybe it will
be kernel shadow stack.