[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181210095955.GI5289@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:59:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:32:21AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
> On 06/12/2018 11:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:13:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > > + if (op == WR_MEMCPY)
> > > > + memcpy((void *)wr_poking_addr, (void *)src, len);
> > > > + else if (op == WR_MEMSET)
> > > > + memset((u8 *)wr_poking_addr, (u8)src, len);
> > > > + else if (op == WR_RCU_ASSIGN_PTR)
> > > > + /* generic version of rcu_assign_pointer */
> > > > + smp_store_release((void **)wr_poking_addr,
> > > > + RCU_INITIALIZER((void **)src));
> > > > + kasan_enable_current();
> > >
> > > Hmm. I suspect this will explode quite badly on sane architectures
> > > like s390. (In my book, despite how weird s390 is, it has a vastly
> > > nicer model of "user" memory than any other architecture I know
> > > of...). I think you should use copy_to_user(), etc, instead. I'm not
> > > entirely sure what the best smp_store_release() replacement is.
> > > Making this change may also mean you can get rid of the
> > > kasan_disable_current().
> >
> > If you make the MEMCPY one guarantee single-copy atomicity for native
> > words then you're basically done.
> >
> > smp_store_release() can be implemented with:
> >
> > smp_mb();
> > WRITE_ONCE();
> >
> > So if we make MEMCPY provide the WRITE_ONCE(), all we need is that
> > barrier, which we can easily place at the call site and not overly
> > complicate our interface with this.
>
> Ok, so the 3rd case (WR_RCU_ASSIGN_PTR) could be handled outside of this
> function.
> But, since now memcpy() will be replaced by copy_to_user(), can I assume
> that also copy_to_user() will be atomic, if the destination is properly
> aligned? On x86_64 it seems yes, however it's not clear to me if this is the
> outcome of an optimization or if I can expect it to be always true.
This would be a new contraint; one that needs to be documented and
verified by the various arch maintainers as they enable this feature on
their platform.
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.
