lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [tip:x86/mm] x86/mm: Consider effective protection attributes in W+X check
From
Date


On 02/26/2018 01:08 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.02.18 at 11:00, <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>> On 02/26/2018 11:48 AM, tip-bot for Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -351,7 +362,7 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st,
>>> (pgtable_l5_enabled && __pa(pt) == __pa(kasan_zero_p4d)) ||
>>> __pa(pt) == __pa(kasan_zero_pud)) {
>>> pgprotval_t prot = pte_flags(kasan_zero_pte[0]);
>>> - note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 5);
>>> + note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 0, 5);
>>
>> Isn't this disables W+X check for kasan page table?
>> Methinks it should be 'prot' here.
>
> Might well be - I actually did ask the question before sending v3,
> but didn't get any answer (yet). The kasan_zero_p?d names
> suggested to me that this is a shortcut for mappings which
> otherwise would be non-present anyway, but that was merely a
> guess.

kasan_zero_p?? are used to map kasan_zero_page. That's it.

> As to W+X checks - I can't see how the result could be
> any better if the protections of kasan_zero_pte[0] would be
> used: Those can't possibly be applicable independent of VA.

I'm not sure I understand what do you mean.
If we somehow screw up and accidentally make kasan_zero_pte writable and executable,
note_page() should report this. With your patch, it won't work.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-26 11:47    [W:0.069 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site