From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Calculate the actual size of vmemmap region
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:50:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190218095010.GJ14858@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJjed2yS1OZ2+rKuMiPr7HTXLx5qMSV+xWHJs-DJGT4-A@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/17/19 at 09:25am, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 6:04 AM Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Vmemmap region has different maximum size depending on paging mode.
> > Now its size is hardcoded as 1TB in memory KASLR, this is not
> > right for 5-level paging mode. It will cause overflow if vmemmap
> > region is randomized to be adjacent to cpu_entry_area region and
> > its actual size is bigger than 1TB.
> >
> > So here calculate how many TB by the actual size of vmemmap region
> > and align up to 1TB boundary.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c
> > index 97768df923e3..ca12ed4e5239 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static __initdata struct kaslr_memory_region {
> > } kaslr_regions[] = {
> > { &page_offset_base, 0 },
> > { &vmalloc_base, 0 },
> > - { &vmemmap_base, 1 },
> > + { &vmemmap_base, 0 },
> > };
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ void __init kernel_randomize_memory(void)
> > unsigned long rand, memory_tb;
> > struct rnd_state rand_state;
> > unsigned long remain_entropy;
> > + unsigned long vmemmap_size;
> >
> > vaddr_start = pgtable_l5_enabled() ? __PAGE_OFFSET_BASE_L5 : __PAGE_OFFSET_BASE_L4;
> > vaddr = vaddr_start;
> > @@ -152,6 +153,14 @@ void __init kernel_randomize_memory(void)
> > if (memory_tb < kaslr_regions[0].size_tb)
> > kaslr_regions[0].size_tb = memory_tb;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Calculate how many TB vmemmap region needs, and align to
> > + * 1TB boundary.
>
> Can you describe why this is the right calculation? (This will help
> explain why 4-level is different from 5-level here.)
In the old code, the size of vmemmap is hardcoded as 1 TB. This is true
in 4-level paging mode, 64 TB RAM supported at most, and usually
sizeof(struct page) is 64 Bytes, it happens to be 1 TB.
However, in 5-level paging mode, 4 PB is the biggest RAM size we can
support, it's (4 PB)/64 == 1<<48, namely 256 TB area needed for vmemmap,
assuming sizeof(struct page) is 64 Bytes here.
So, the hardcoding of 1 TB is not correct for 5-level paging mode.
Thanks
Baoquan
>
> > + */
> > + vmemmap_size = (kaslr_regions[0].size_tb << (TB_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)) *
> > + sizeof(struct page);
> > + kaslr_regions[2].size_tb = DIV_ROUND_UP(vmemmap_size, 1UL << TB_SHIFT);
> > +
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-18 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-16 14:00 [PATCH v3 0/6] Several patches to fix code bugs, improve documents and clean up Baoquan He
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Improve code comments about struct kaslr_memory_region Baoquan He
2019-02-17 17:07 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-18 3:17 ` Baoquan He
2019-03-12 3:45 ` Baoquan He
2019-03-12 0:55 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Open code unnecessary function get_padding Baoquan He
2019-02-17 17:14 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] mm: Add build time sanity check for struct page size Baoquan He
2019-02-17 16:50 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-18 8:07 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Fix the wrong calculation of memory region initial size Baoquan He
2019-02-17 16:53 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-18 8:30 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Calculate the actual size of vmemmap region Baoquan He
2019-02-17 17:25 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-18 9:50 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2019-02-18 10:09 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-18 10:11 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-16 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] x86/mm/KASLR: Do not adapt the size of the direct mapping section for SGI UV system Baoquan He
2019-02-17 2:09 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-18 19:24 ` Mike Travis
2019-02-19 0:04 ` Baoquan He
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=20190218095010.GJ14858@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thgarnie@google.com \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox