lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Honour passed pgprot in track_pfn_insert() and track_pfn_remap()
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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 think it's not even that. That particular mapping is just VM_READ.

Anyway, this patch is:

Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>

Ingo etc: this patch should probably go in to tip:x86/asm -- the code
currently in there is wrong, even if it has no obvious symptom.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-30 00:01    [W:0.247 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site