lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: use the right protections for split-up pagetables

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > So the whole
> >
> > ref_prot = pte_pgprot(pte_mkexec(pte_clrhuge(*kpte)));
> > pgprot_val(ref_prot) |= _PAGE_PRESENT;
> > __set_pmd_pte(kpte, address, mk_pte(base, ref_prot));
> >
> > sequence is utter crap, I think. The whole "ref_prot" there
> > should be just _pgprot(_KERNPG_TABLE), I think. I don't think
> > there is any other valid value.
>
> Agreed, split_large_page() was just plain confused here - there
> was no hidden reason for this logic. It makes no sense to bring
> any pte level protection information to the PMD level because a
> pmd entry covers a set of 512 ptes so there's no singular
> protection attribute that can be carried to it.
>
> The right solution is what you suggested: to use the most
> permissive protection bits for the pmd, i.e. _KERNPG_TABLE.
> Since the protection bits get combined, this makes the pte
> protections control the final behavior of the mapping - so
> subsequent code patching and similar activities will work fine.
>
> The bug was mostly harmless until Steve hacked his kernel to
> have the right (large) size of readonly, text and data areas. I
> never hit such an ftrace hang even with allyesconfig bzImage
> bootups [which has obscenely large text and data sections], so i
> think something in Steve's tree was also needed to trigger it:
> an unusually large readonly data section.
>
> I've queued up the fix below in tip:x86/urgent and will send a
> pull request later today if it passes testing. Steve, does this
> solve the bug you've hit?

Yep, I've already tried this fix. It works fine.

-- Steve

>
> With this fix i dont think the other bits from Steve's series
> (patch 1-4) are needed at all - those patches expose PMD details
> in various places that iterate over ptes - that's ugly and
> unnecessary as well if the PMD's protection is permissive.
>
> [ Also, since you suggested the fix i've added your Acked-by,
> let me know if you dont agree with any aspect of the fix. ]
>
> Ingo
>
> ---------------->
> >From f07eb4c47d5d4a70dc8eb8e2c158741cd6c69948 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:04:13 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: use the right protections for split-up pagetables
>
> Steven Rostedt found a bug in where in his modified kernel
> ftrace was unable to modify the kernel text, due to the PMD
> itself having been marked read-only as well in
> split_large_page().
>
> The fix, suggested by Linus, is to not try to 'clone' the
> reference protection of a huge-page, but to use the standard
> (and permissive) page protection bits of KERNPG_TABLE.
>
> The 'cloning' makes sense for the ptes but it's a confused and
> incorrect concept at the page table level - because the
> pagetable entry is a set of all ptes and hence cannot
> 'clone' any single protection attribute - the ptes can be any
> mixture of protections.
>
> With the permissive KERNPG_TABLE, even if the pte protections
> get changed after this point (due to ftrace doing code-patching
> or other similar activities like kprobes), the resulting combined
> protections will still be correct and the pte's restrictive
> (or permissive) protections will control it.
>
> Also update the comment.
>
> This bug was there for a long time but has not caused visible
> problems before as it needs a rather large read-only area to
> trigger. Steve possibly hacked his kernel with some really
> large arrays or so. Anyway, the bug is definitely worth fixing.
>
> [ Huang Ying also experienced problems in this area when writing
> the EFI code, but the real bug in split_large_page() was not
> realized back then. ]
>
> Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Reported-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 15 +++++----------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> index 8ca0d85..17d5d1a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -508,18 +508,13 @@ static int split_large_page(pte_t *kpte, unsigned long address)
> #endif
>
> /*
> - * Install the new, split up pagetable. Important details here:
> + * Install the new, split up pagetable.
> *
> - * On Intel the NX bit of all levels must be cleared to make a
> - * page executable. See section 4.13.2 of Intel 64 and IA-32
> - * Architectures Software Developer's Manual).
> - *
> - * Mark the entry present. The current mapping might be
> - * set to not present, which we preserved above.
> + * We use the standard kernel pagetable protections for the new
> + * pagetable protections, the actual ptes set above control the
> + * primary protection behavior:
> */
> - ref_prot = pte_pgprot(pte_mkexec(pte_clrhuge(*kpte)));
> - pgprot_val(ref_prot) |= _PAGE_PRESENT;
> - __set_pmd_pte(kpte, address, mk_pte(base, ref_prot));
> + __set_pmd_pte(kpte, address, mk_pte(base, _pgprot(_KERNPG_TABLE)));
> base = NULL;
>
> out_unlock:
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-20 14:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans