[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <83ED6142-A370-42FD-BBA4-95E5C3F998B3@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:53:11 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:15:46AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>>> On 30/10/2018 23:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>>> But I dislike allowing regular writes in the protected region. We
>>>> really only need four write primitives:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Just write one value. Call at any time (except NMI).
>>>>
>>>> 2. Just copy some bytes. Same as (1) but any number of bytes.
>>>>
>>>> 3,4: Same as 1 and 2 but must be called inside a special rare write
>>>> region. This is purely an optimization.
>>>
>>> Atomic? RCU?
>>
>> RCU can be done, that's not really a problem. Atomics otoh are a
>> problem. Having pointers makes them just work.
>>
>> Andy; I understand your reason for not wanting them, but I really don't
>> want to duplicate everything. Is there something we can do with static
>> analysis to make you more comfortable with the pointer thing?
>
> I’m sure we could do something with static analysis, but I think seeing a real use case where all this fanciness makes sense would be good.
>
> And I don’t know if s390 *can* have an efficient implementation that uses pointers. OTOH they have all kinds of magic stuff, so who knows?
Also, if we’re using a hypervisor, then there are a couple ways it could be done:
1. VMFUNC. Pointers work fine. This is stronger than any amount of CR3 trickery because it can’t be defeated by page table attacks.
2. A hypercall to do the write. No pointers.
Basically, I think that if we can get away without writable pointers, we get more flexibility and less need for fancy static analysis. If we do need pointers, then so be it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
