linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gustavo Romero <gromero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: [RFC] Fix si->si_code for guard page access on PowerPC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:23:31 -0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A25783.7040502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)

Fix si->si_code for guard page access on PowerPC

Currently, the mm code on PowerPC/POWER returns a si->si_code = 2
(SEGV_ACCERR) when the stack tries to grow beyond the stack guard
(stack ulimit). On other architectures, notably x86, the si->si_code
returned when a guard page access occurs is 1 (SEGV_MAPERR).

Although si->si_code is not historically reliable and hence no
program should trust it for any semantic behavior, the right
si->si_code for a guard page access is 1 (SEGV_MAPERR) and,
besides that, some tests still trust it in specific cases.

On PowerPC/POWER, if the mm tries to expand the stack and
hits a page mapped by the program (say, an anonymous page
with permission ---p) it generates a SIG_SEGV and a si->si_code = 2
(SEGV_ACCERR), the same way it happens on x86. But then, when this
guard page is removed (un-mapped) and the stack grows again reaching
the stack guard (stack ulimit), the mm generates a SIG_SEGV and a
si->si_code = 2 (SEGV_ACCERR) again, contrary to, for example,
what happens on x86 (si->si_code = 1 (SIG_MAPERR)). It means that
on PowerPC/POWER there is no semantic difference between a stack
growth hitting a mapped area the stack has no permission to rd/wr
and reaching the stack limit (stack ulimit), although indeed there
is a difference.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo Romero <gromero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
  arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 4 +++-
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
index a67c6d7..6954971 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
@@ -431,8 +431,10 @@ good_area:
            */
           fault = handle_mm_fault(mm, vma, address, flags);
           if (unlikely(fault & (VM_FAULT_RETRY|VM_FAULT_ERROR))) {
-                  if (fault & VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV)
+                  if (fault & VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV) {
+                           code = SEGV_MAPERR;
                             goto bad_area;
+                  }
                    rc = mm_fault_error(regs, address, fault);
                    if (rc >= MM_FAULT_RETURN)
                             goto bail;

             reply	other threads:[~2016-01-22 16:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-22 16:23 Gustavo Romero [this message]
2016-02-24  9:39 ` [RFC] Fix si->si_code for guard page access on PowerPC Michael Ellerman

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=56A25783.7040502@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=gromero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).