lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Honour passed pgprot in track_pfn_insert() and track_pfn_remap()
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Matthew Wilcox
> >> <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > track_pfn_insert() overwrites the pgprot that is passed in with a value
> >> > based on the VMA's page_prot. This is a problem for people trying to
> >> > do clever things with the new vm_insert_pfn_prot() as it will simply
> >> > overwrite the passed protection flags. If we use the current value of
> >> > the pgprot as the base, then it will behave as people are expecting.
> >> >
> >> > Also fix track_pfn_remap() in the same way.
> >>
> >> Well that's embarrassing. Presumably it worked for me because I only
> >> overrode the cacheability bits and lookup_memtype did the right thing.
> >>
> >> But shouldn't the PAT code change the memtype if vm_insert_pfn_prot
> >> requests it? Or are there no callers that actually need that? (HPET
> >> doesn't, because there's a plain old ioremapped mapping.)
> >
> > I'm confused. Here's what I understand:
> >
> > - on x86, the bits in pgprot can be considered as two sets of bits;
> > the 'cacheability bits' -- those in _PAGE_CACHE_MASK and the
> > 'protection bits' -- PRESENT, RW, USER, ACCESSED, NX
> > - The purpose of track_pfn_insert() is to ensure that the cacheability bits
> > are the same on all mappings of a given page, as strongly advised by the
> > Intel manuals [1]. So track_pfn_insert() is really only supposed to
> > modify _PAGE_CACHE_MASK of the passed pgprot, but in fact it ends up
> > modifying the protection bits as well, due to the bug.
> >
> > I don't think you overrode the cacheability bits at all. It looks to
> > me like your patch ends up mapping the HPET into userspace writable.
>
> I sure hope not. If vm_page_prot was writable, something was already
> broken, because this is the vvar mapping, and the vvar mapping is
> VM_READ (and not even VM_MAYREAD).

I do beg yor pardon. I thought you were inserting a readonly page
into the middle of a writable mapping. Instead you're inserting a
non-executable page into the middle of a VM_READ | VM_EXEC mapping.
Sorry for the confusion. I should have written:

"like your patch ends up mapping the HPET into userspace executable"

which is far less exciting.

> > I don't think the vm_insert_pfn_prot() call gets to change the memtype.
> > For one, that page may already be mapped into a differet userspace using
> > the pre-existing memtype, and [1] continues to bite you. Then there
> > may be outstanding kernel users of the page that's being mapped in.
>
> So why was remap_pfn_range different? I'm sure there was a reason.

Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-29 16:01    [W:0.060 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site